wlc at jctaylor.com
Thu Sep 12 16:12:10 AEST 2019
Okay, while on the subject of SCCS and UNIX:
Is there a UNIX (post SCCS) like System III or System V that still has all of the original SCCS entries intact?
Would only production ready code be entered as an SCCS delta?
Or, would SCCS be used as a checkpoint tool to store unofficial versions (even broken versions) of the UNIX codebase as development progressed on the system as a whole?
I would love to see all of the prs for the kernel and commands.
> On Sep 12, 2019, at 12:33 AM, Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:
> 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.
> Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com http://www.mcvoy.com/lm
More information about the TUHS