Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.uoregon.edu!kaiwan.kaiwan.com!pell.pell.chi.il.us!pell.pell.chi.il.us!there.is.no.cabal
From: orc@pell.chi.il.us (Orc)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.unix.misc
Subject: SCCS == Xerox.
Date: 7 Dec 1995 23:19:44 -0800
Organization: We're here, we're queer, we're going to drink some beer
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <4a8oug$phd@pell.pell.chi.il.us>
References: <489kuu$rbo@pelican.cs.ucla.edu> <MICHAELV.95Dec2230815@mindbender.headcandy.com> <49sql5$99f@pell.pell.chi.il.us> <30C22309.41C67EA6@freebsd.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pell.pell.chi.il.us
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.advocacy:30615 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:10646 comp.unix.advocacy:12290 comp.unix.misc:20147
In article <30C22309.41C67EA6@freebsd.org>,
Jordan K. Hubbard <jkh@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>Orc wrote:
>> not known for 'buggier and harder to maintain' software. SCCS is
>> an unqualified Good Thing(tm), but, regretfully, it's not necessary
>
>Just for the record, SCCS is most definitely NOT an "unqualified Good
>Thing(tm)" and, in point of fact, it sucks rocks. RCS is a far better
>alternative now, and CVS even better still.
Ah, I sense a small degree of confusion; I'm not talking SCCS,
the application, but SCCS as in source code control -- think Xerox
for version control. SCCS, RCS, CMS, (whatever the fuck the
internal Apple version control thingie is called) -- they're ALL
SCCS to me, and as such an unqualified (well, except for CMS,
which is a dec-spawn of satan) Good Thing(tm).
____
david parsons \bi/ Oh, and the parsetime code in at? It never sullied
\/ SCCS's lips between inpleasant surprise (to find
that at Didn't Do Dates) and shipping. I shudder
to think what would have happened if I used _that
particular coding style for some of the large
projects I've done for Sybase and Apple.