baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Steven L. Baur) (10/17/89)
After seeing the discussion here, I am still somewhat confused. What I would like to know is why RCS/SCCS is better than SCCS/RCS. I personally use SCCS because: 1) It runs on all UNIX machines (that I use) 2) It has a nice user interface (except on System V, but a simple Korn Shell script emulating the Berkely interface fixed that) 3) It is integrated with Make(1) 4) I am familiar with it and trust it (this is not unimportant since SCCS has saved me in that past) However, RCS has a devoted following including people I respect a lot. Why do you use RCS, and why should I also use it? I would love to be convinced. RCS source is publicly available and SCCS is not. That is a very good reason to switch, but not enough. (I have RCS compiled and running on my System V box at home, and at work, but have never used it to configuration manage anything important). steve (baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM)
rick@pcrat.uucp (Rick Richardson) (10/18/89)
In article <77@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM> baur@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Steven L. Baur) writes: > >Why do you use RCS, and why should I also use it? I would love to be >convinced. If I had my druthers, I'd use none of the above. Neither is capable of automating the software configuration management and manufacturing process without a lot of roll it yourself customization with shell scripts/functions and a real database to track workspaces, changes, modification requests, releases and the like. I'd also dump make and use fourth generation nmake (which I loved during the 1 1/2 years that I was a heavy user). * (see below) However, to answer the question, I switched to RCS because out of the box it already had a decent user interface and I was tired of having to reinvent for the Nth time a usable interface to SCCS. I also believed at the time I switched that it was capable of handling binary files (for icons, fonts, etc). It turned out that this was wrong. You can check binaries in, and check them out under RCS, but you cannot delta them. This is one better than SCCS, so I'm still happy. I also like the fact that the ID keywords ($Id$, $Log$) are preserved and *expanded* even in a checked out for modification copy. The icing on the cake, though, was that RCS has symbolic revision numbers, so you can freeze a release, call it R1_2, and later check out the whole release by asking for it by symbolic name, no matter what the individual file revision numbers are. SCCS has no equivalent unless you tack on a real database management system, or use the contrivance of forcing revision numbers for all files to some common number. I was always aware that the supposed performance advantage of RCS was an urban legend. It was ease of use that drove me to give up seven years of SCCS experience and switch to RCS. * What I'd like to do is write an MR, either bug or feature, and promise it fixed in some release number. Then, when I go to make the release, all the MRs are checked to see that they are included in some "commentary" before it lets me make the release. Additionally, MR's not committed to a release, but fixed nevertheless, will be updated automatically "fixed in release NNN". So when I'm done with a release, I have a piece of software and release notes describing exactly what was changed, keyed to the MRs, and nothing fell thru the cracks. Neither RCS nor SCCS is this integrated. They are mearly low level tools that I suppose you could build such a system around. -Rick -- Rick Richardson | Looking for FAX software for UNIX/386 ?????? mention PC Research,Inc.| WE'RE SHIPPING your uunet!pcrat!rick| Ask about FaxiX - UNIX Facsimile System (tm) FAX # (201) 389-8963 | Or JetRoff - troff postprocessor for the HP {Laser,Desk}Jet
chen@digital.sps.mot.com (Jinfu Chen) (10/18/89)
> >However, to answer the question, I switched to RCS because out of >the box it already had a decent user interface and I was tired of >having to reinvent for the Nth time a usable interface to SCCS. Ditto here. Being a novice user to software resource control, I learned both SCCS and RCS recently and found that RCS is the one for me. It only took me less than half an hour to learn and start using it. >I also like the fact that the ID keywords ($Id$, $Log$) are preserved >and *expanded* even in a checked out for modification copy. Yes, this is another reason I like RCS. Perhaps I have a lousy memory, that twenty cryptical SCCS keywords keep me away from SCCS. -- Jinfu Chen (602)898-5338 | Disclaimer: Motorola, Inc. Logic IC Div., Mesa, AZ | ...{somewhere}!uunet!dover!digital!chen | My employer doesn't pay chen@digital.sps.mot.com | me to express opinions. ----------