roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (12/20/86)
[sci.research isn't really right for this; followups to comp.text]
This is sort of a funny question, but I'd like to know what kinds
of experiences people have had using RCS to maintain text documents (as
opposed to source code). Clearly it's feasable, but I'm thinking more of
the human factors; my target population is a bunch of scientists who know
enough about Unix to deal with emacs, troff, eqn, bib, and tbl, and to do
data analysis using canned applications. By and large, (although there is
a wide distribution) they are not programmers or real computer types.
A lot of what we do is manuscripts and grant applications; both
would benefit from RCSification. Right now, for example, I've got two
people working on a grant application, with separate copies of the files
rapidly growing more and more divergent (one likes Times, the other
Helvetica; that's the only way they keep their printed copies straight).
Anway, I don't need a sales pitch on RCS/SCCS (I already use RCS
and love it). What I'm really after are opinions as to whether it is
practical to teach a non-computer type how to use RCS, and have the value
they get out of it exceed the effort they had to put into learning Yet
Another Thing.
--
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
"you can't spell deoxyribonucleic without unix!"mark@mimsy.UUCP (Mark Weiser) (12/23/86)
In article <2544@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > > This is sort of a funny question, but I'd like to know what kinds >of experiences people have had using RCS to maintain text documents (as >opposed to source code) >Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy I used RCS for text for a time, but then discovered that it cost more storage than just keeping the old versions around directly. Apparently, the way I edit my papers causes almost every line to change, and RCS hurt rather than helped, in a compression sense. -mark -- Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: mark@mimsy.cs.umd Phone: +1-301-454-7817 CSNet: mark@mimsy UUCP: {seismo,allegra}!mimsy!mark USPS: Computer Science Dept., University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
mike@mipos3.UUCP (Michael Bruck) (12/25/86)
In article <2544@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > > This is sort of a funny question, but I'd like to know what kinds > of experiences people have had using RCS to maintain text documents... We're in the process of writing a very large program architecture spec and as there are several co-authors, we decided to use RCS to control the source files to the formatter (scribe). So far we have found it very useful for most of the same reasons that makes RCS useful for software development. -- --Michael Bruck Corporate CAD, Intel Corp, Santa Clara, California UUCP: ...{hplabs,decwrl,oliveb,amdcad}!intelca!mipos3!mike CSNET: mike@mipos3.intel.com Work is the refuge of people who have nothing better to do. The above views are personal.
mao@blipyramid.BLI.COM (Mike Olson) (01/05/87)
In article <2544@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > This is sort of a funny question, but I'd like to know what kinds > of experiences people have had using RCS to maintain text documents (as > opposed to source code) > Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy we use rcs to maintain almost all of our distributed documentation. if you're *very* careful about assigning symbolic names, you'll probably find it useful. we have. we're not terribly concerned about the space eaten up by the rcs files, because the development log that accompanies them is useful. being able to maintain both source code and its documentation with the same package (and using the same symbolic names) is handy. mike olson disclaimer: all opinions expressed above are mine, and do not necessarily represent the views of britton lee inc.