On 25 Oct 2000, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:

# jchacon wrote:

# > The compiler, sure. CVS?? That's just there for people doing direct
# > development and I agree shouldn't be in the tree.

# 
# I think I agree, and if it's not neither should RCS be in the tree for
# the same reasons I'd say.  If RCS should be, then I think CVS should
# be because, as far as I'm concerned, it's the extension that makes RCS
# truly useful.  8-)

"That's one humanoid's opinion."

I've yet to use cvs for anything else besides a nightly source up-
date from the central repository; for anything else on the system,
I find RCS to work just fine.

But being that I've never set up a server nor used it in a local
fashion, I can't actually speak first-hand about its benefits nor
of its downfalls.  I've heard, though, that you can't really lock
a file in the same way that CVS does (which I find rather useful
at work, especially on the global databases (IuseNISpleasedontshootme)),
for example.

CVS also takes up a meg+ of space for its installation, whereas all
told, the man pages included, RCS only takes up 366KB.

I know, I know, these days a meg doesn't seem like much.  Still,
consider the comparison.

# I find CVS insanely useful for lots of non-development uses, btw.
# 
# I use it to manage my dot files, I use it to manage web sites, I've
# used it to manage /etc (it's not so great at this, at least with the
# versions of our /etc contents that i've tried 8-), I use it to manage
# random collections of todo lists, etc.
# 
# It's not just a development tool, it's a way of life.  But that
# doesn't mean it should be in the source tree.  (wow, that almost
# sounds like a comment some people might make about emacs... 8-)

...which ALSO should DEFINITELY NOT be in the source tree!

That said, RCS ought to stay.

# chris


				--*greywolf;
--
*BSD: It's not Windows (thank goodness for small favours).