Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 15:12:37 -0400 From: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com> To: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The Source Code Control System Message-ID: <20020615151237.A11711@hda.hda.com> In-Reply-To: <20020612231407.GH44106@wantadilla.lemis.com>; from grog@FreeBSD.ORG on Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 08:44:07AM %2B0930 References: <20020612155452.A57120@FreeBSD.ORG> <20020612231407.GH44106@wantadilla.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 08:44:07AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > My feeling is that SCCS is only of historical interest. It would be > nice to be able to access old SCCS files, but I can't imagine that > many people would want to use it for new work. Boy, do I wish this were the case. I'm behind on mail, I browsed the responses to this thread, and I'm of at least two minds on this one: First mind: Keep it a solid port to encourage SCCS fading away. Those forced to use it will find it. Second mind: If any reputable standard expects it, and if Solaris includes it, pull it in. I have one client purchasing a fair number of embedded Solaris systems per year who will not give up SCCS, and for that client the inclusion of SCCS in a standard distribution (as I guess it is in Solaris) is a big plus. They've been shipping systems for X+ years, and all customer modified files have been automatically under SCCS control. For them SCCS is an expected part of the system, and the fact that it is available as a port and not in the base system is unnerving. Don't ask why leaving out a compiler isn't a concern. Peter -- Peter Dufault (dufault@hda.com) Realtime development, Machine control, HD Associates, Inc. Fail-Safe systems, Agency approval To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020615151237.A11711>