Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!baobab.Berkeley.EDU!hastings
From: hastings@baobab.Berkeley.EDU (Mark Hastings)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: rcs for SysV
Message-ID: <18167@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 10 Oct 89 16:43:14 GMT
References: <78@vidiot.UUCP> <1367@celit.fps.com>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: hastings@baobab.Berkeley.EDU (Mark Hastings)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 19

In article <1367@celit.fps.com> billd@fps.com (Bill Davidson) writes:
>
>Does anyone know why Berkeley (or anyone in their right mind) still uses SCCS?

NOTE:  I'm not speaking for anyone else at Berkeley, particularly not BSD folk.

One reason to use SCCS is that it's there and it works.  SCCS has been included
in every version of *nix I've come across (granted limited experience with
those Sys-V packages that make *everything* an optional accessory).

After using SCCS for many years, our project looked at "moving up" to RCS.
But we'd become so attached to the features of the sccs front end that RCS
lacked (sccs info, etc..) that we decided to wait until there was a complete,
upwardly-compatible RCS package.  Familiarity over technological superiority.

>--Bill

--Mark Hastings					(415) 642-4611
  hastings@ernie.berkeley.edu			..!ucbvax!ernie!hastings