Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!wa4mei!holos0!lbr
From: lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Does SCCS allow you to "un-delta" a version???
Keywords: sccs fix
Message-ID: <1991May28.173254.1824@holos0.uucp>
Date: 28 May 91 17:32:54 GMT
References: <2285@twg.bc.ca> <10094@star.cs.vu.nl>
Organization: Holos Software, Inc., Atlanta, GA
Lines: 30

In article <10094@star.cs.vu.nl> mgemmel@cs.vu.nl (Martin Gemmel) writes:

>Now while we're at it, does anybody think SCCS is better than
>RCS or vice versa? Which system is newer/better?

RCS is easiser to use than SCCS and can be bought (from MKS) for
DOS and OS/2.  It's mechanism for inserting the checkin log into
the file text is nice ($Log$), and the fact that you don't have to
work with unsubstituted "what" commands in the editable file is preferable.
I like being able to say "co file.c; vi file.c"
instead of "get -e s.file.c; vi file.c"--I don't want to type "s.", I can
cause RCS to always check out editable versions.  The "s." nonsense is
real annoying with csh or ksh.  In csh, I can say

co file.c
vi !$

No such luck SCCS.

As to make, get dmake from Waterloo or Gnu-make.  Both support RCS rules
as part of a generalization of implicit rules.  Both are far better
than regular make.  Both have make-time ifs and pattern substitution
and lots else.  Both are free.


-- 
Len Reed
Holos Software, Inc.
Voice: (404) 496-1358
UUCP: ...!gatech!holos0!lbr