Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com
Thu Sep 12 14:33:08 AEST 2019

Yeah, this was one of things that BitKeeper addressed.  It was easier
to use and every commit was a tag.

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 09:28:25PM -0700, Jon Forrest wrote:
> I used both RCS and SCCS in the early days (e.g. 1985 - 1991). RCS was
> what we used at Britton-Lee in the group that Eric Allman was part of.
> SCCS is what we used at Sybase as it was gaining popularity. This was
> so long ago that I don't remember all the details but I found that
> RCS was much easier to use, especially in an environment that didn't
> do much merging. Instead we used labels (or tags, I forget what they
> were called) to mark which files were part of which release. Doing
> this was much harder in SCCS, which contributed to the mess that
> was Sybase software engineering.
> Of course, all this could be explained by Eric's deep knowledge
> of RCS, and the lack of somebody with Eric's knowledge at Sybase.
> But, to me, an early adopter of source code control who wasn't
> overly interested in speed, RCS was much easier to use.
> Jon

Larry McVoy            	     lm at mcvoy.com             http://www.mcvoy.com/lm 

More information about the TUHS mailing list