Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!hwcs!zen!vic
From: vic@zen.co.uk (Victor Gavin)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Source Code Control
Message-ID: <1625@zen.co.uk>
Date: 26 Jun 89 11:51:04 GMT
References: <791@redsox.bsw.com> <357@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>
Reply-To: vic@zen.UUCP (Victor Gavin)
Organization: Zengrange Limited, Leeds, England
Lines: 26

In article <357@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes:
>In article <791@redsox.bsw.com>, Larry Campbell <campbell@redsox.UUCP> 
>describes a possible methodology for configuration management using the
>"state" attribute of individual RCS files.
>
>It would be better, IMHO, to increment the release level (i.e. "state")
>of all other modules --- regardless of the difficulty of doing so.

I've been waiting for someone else to mention this, but since no one has come
forward...

What's wrong with named versions?

Just "rcs -nVersion_1 RCS/*" (or use rcsfreeze, which checks in your files
for you as well), and everything has a consistent ``name'', you no longer
have to keep each file at the same revision code or make unwieldy abuse of
features designed for other uses.

				vic

"This is one man's opinion" -- Sam Malone
--
Victor Gavin						Zengrange Limited
vic@zen.co.uk						Greenfield Road
..!mcvax!ukc!zen.co.uk!vic				Leeds England
+44 532 489048						LS9 8DB