dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson) (05/20/89)
I'm looking for an SCCS-clone for MS-DOS. I have heard about one
from Poly-something, and I have heard of MKS RCS. I haven't heard
anything _about_ either.
I use Microsoft C and MASM. I currently use Microsoft MAKE. I
would be willing to use another make, but I would like to stay with
the MS complier and assembler.
Can anyone offer recommendations or advice regarding the above
mentioned, or any other source code revision-control tools for the
MS-DOS environment?
Thanks.
--
Dave Levenson
{uunet | rutgers | att}!westmark!dave
...the man in the mooneylth@uoregon.uoregon.edu (Lars Thomas Hansen) (05/21/89)
In article <1374@westmark.UUCP> dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson) writes: >I'm looking for an SCCS-clone for MS-DOS. I have heard about one >from Poly-something, and I have heard of MKS RCS. I haven't heard >anything _about_ either. A seemingly thorough review of a number of source control systems for MS-DOS can be found in two issues of last year's "The C User's Journal", published by R&D Publications/The C User's Group, Lawrence, KS (Don't have street address, zip, or phone # here. Sorry.) They generelly have back issues for sale. --lars
scotth@grebyn.COM (Scott Hutchinson) (05/22/89)
In article <1374@westmark.UUCP> dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson) writes: >from Poly-something, and I have heard of MKS RCS. I haven't heard >anything _about_ either. We've been using Polytron for a short time, they have a good evaluation program. We are evaluating Poly PVCS, ploy-make, doc and lib. They also handle networking. From what I've seen of it, it appears to be set up for large scale revision control, although I heard they also have a personal version. -Scott Hutchinson -- -Scott H. Hutchinson Standard Disclamers: These opinions are mine, they do not reflect on my Company at all. I can be reached at scotth@grebyn.com or scotth@grebyn.uucp
seg@smsdpg.uu.net (Scott Garfinkle) (05/23/89)
From article <50396@teemc.UUCP>, by wayne@teemc.UUCP (//ichael R. //ayne): > ... I would LOVE to find someone that > implements SCCS for MS-DOS but I suspect that no one does. Mortice Kern Systems sells a full implementation of Tichy's RCS for DOS. Write to ...watmath!mks!Postmaster for info. (That's all I know about it. I do all my RCS on my file server, a Sun.) yours, Scott E. Garfinkle SMS Data Products Group, Inc. uunet!smsdpg!seg (seg@smsdpg.uu.net) <** Use the above address -- do not 'r'eply**>
johnl@ima.ima.isc.com (John R. Levine) (05/23/89)
In article <1374@westmark.UUCP> dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson) writes: >I'm looking for an SCCS-clone for MS-DOS. ... >I use Microsoft C and MASM. I currently use Microsoft MAKE. ... I've had good experience with Polytron's PVCS, which is more or less a reimplementation of rcs. It works nicely. I used it to control a project with about 75,000 lines of source code and six people working on it at once. Microsoft "make" is the worst excuse for a make program that I have ever seen. It makes only one sequential pass through the makefile, which means that you can't have very interesting dependencies. I'd use the make that comes with Turbo C, or else one of the free makes that has been floating around the BBS world. You can mix and match source control programs, compilers, and make programs since they all use the same plain ASCII file formats. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 { bbn | spdcc | decvax | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something Massachusetts has 64 licensed drivers who are over 100 years old. -The Globe
dmt@mtunb.ATT.COM (Dave Tutelman) (05/23/89)
In article <3952@ima.ima.isc.com> johnl@ima.UUCP (John R. Levine) writes: >In article <1374@westmark.UUCP> dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson) writes: >>I'm looking for an SCCS-clone for MS-DOS. ... >>I use Microsoft C and MASM. I currently use Microsoft MAKE. ... > >I've had good experience with Polytron's PVCS... I, too, have good experience with PVCS. About a year and a half ago, we used PVCS on a project with 4 developers and an integrator. It worked well enough. My major complaint at the time was the lack of knowledge of who had checked out a file, but we were using the "personal" version on a file server; I believe they now have a "networked" version, and that would be a natural difference to implement. >Microsoft "make" is the worst excuse for a make program that I have ever seen. Hear, hear! It's really a toy. Get yourself a tool. The MAKE from Turbo C is good, as are Don Kneller's two MAKEs, the shareware NDMAKE and commercial OPUS make. HOWEVER... if you use PVCS, it's worth getting PolyMAKE from PolyTron. It's as good as the others (each has its pros and cons), and it knows about PVCS archives. I was able to implement some Makefiles for the integrator that allowed version-specific manufacture, while the ordinary developers could do very efficient latest-version makes. It would have been clumsy-to-impossible to accomplish this with a MAKE that didn't know how to read PVCS archives. +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dave Tutelman | | Physical - AT&T Bell Labs - Middletown, NJ | | Logical - ...att!mtunb!dmt | | Audible - (201) 957 6583 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
kneller@cgl.ucsf.edu (Don Kneller) (05/26/89)
In article <1506@mtunb.ATT.COM> dmt@mtunb.UUCP (Dave Tutelman) writes: >In article <3952@ima.ima.isc.com> johnl@ima.UUCP (John R. Levine) writes: >>In article <1374@westmark.UUCP> dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson) writes: >>>I'm looking for an SCCS-clone for MS-DOS. ... >>>I use Microsoft C and MASM. I currently use Microsoft MAKE. ... >> >>I've had good experience with Polytron's PVCS... > I, too, have good experience with PVCS. > >>Microsoft "make" is the worst excuse for a make program that I have ever seen. > Hear, hear! It's really a toy. Get yourself a tool. > The MAKE from Turbo C is good, as are Don Kneller's two MAKEs, > the shareware NDMAKE and commercial OPUS make. > > HOWEVER... if you use PVCS, it's worth getting PolyMAKE from > PolyTron. It's as good as the others (each has its pros and cons), > and it knows about PVCS archives. OPUS MAKE knows PVCS archives, perhaps better than PolyMAKE does. This is because Polytron does not let you know which version it's looked at when it comes time to check out the file. So you have to hardcode the version information in two separate places in your makefile. This makes using inference rules involving PVCS files nearly impossible. For example, with PolyMAKE you might say: LOGVER = -r1.1 .LOGFILES: .c_v(.c $(LOGVER)) .c_v.c: get $(LOGVER) $< The problem with using a macro to pass this information is that it does not work if you need to get a different version for different files. With OPUS MAKE: .PVCSLOGFILES: .c_v(.c -r1.1) .c_v.c: get $& $< where $& is a run-time macro which gets properly bound. I can give you more information on our product, if you wish. Look for our review in July Computer Language. Hopefully we are the "best buy". - don ----- Don Kneller UUCP: ...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!kneller INTERNET: kneller@cgl.ucsf.edu BITNET: kneller@ucsfcgl.BITNET