Bill Davidsen wrote: > I'm a great believer in RCS for this: > - all on the machine, no need to set up servers Git (and most of the other distributed VCS') doesn't require any server setup. It also doesn't litter your directories with RCS dirs nor make you manually manage every damn file. RCS was nice in the 80's, but it is surely showing it's age now. :) Tools like git are also _much_ more efficient with storage space, so you waste a lot less disk than if you used RCS. > - easy to roll back if needed As is git --reset. > - easy to embed version, date, etc, in comments > to be sure you have what you think you do. > - right capability where multiple admins are not changing > things all the time. Or at least the same things. > - if you use the comments capability, leaves a good audit trail. Of course, git log does this quite nicely as well, and can capably show you changes that encompass multiple files or file moves/renames easier than RCS (similarly for mercurial and bzr). > Tools intended to solve multi-user development are more complex than > they need to be. CVS, git, yady, yada, yada. To each their own I suppose. But anyone who hasn't already invested time learning a version control system would be incredibly remiss IMO if they chose RCS over Git (or any of the distributed tools). I started with RCS a long time ago and I'll be damned if I ever use it again willingly. ;) -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Everyone needs to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.
Attachment:
pgpMldRijcPlh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
