Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site wateng.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!wateng!tpchmara
From: tpchmara@wateng.UUCP (Thomas P. Chmara, Creative Slothfulness Inc.)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.unix-wizards
Subject: sccs vs rcs:  SUMMARY
Message-ID: <2792@wateng.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Sep-85 11:32:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: wateng.2792
Posted: Wed Sep  4 11:32:56 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Sep-85 06:22:25 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 44
Xref: watmath net.unix:5558 net.unix-wizards:14697

(Did this go to both net.unix[-wizards]?  It does now...)

Well, I got a reasonably large response to my query regarding the best
of SCCS and RCS, both in article and mail format.  I won't reproduce the
letters herein, but I will give a brief conclusion derivable from the
notes I received:

SCCS:	older, a standard.
	"big, hairy, full of stuff that I've never used..."
	"has a lot of stuff RCS doesn't...I don't know if it's really
	 useful..."
	"facility for..revision history[s] is gross..."
	"more cryptic...and less [!] features [than RCS]"
	"sccs is a major pain in the a**."
	"sccs documentation is better"

RCS:	newer, cleaner.
	"symbolic revision names a plus"
	used by various software houses (I've withheld the names because I
		haven't checked on the advisability of using them)
	"RCS is MUCH easier to get started with"
	"pretty smart at figuring out what you really want it to do"
	"RCS is a clear winner"
	"easy to use...more efficient retrieval mechanism...syntax of inline
	 comment fields nicer...facilties for developing and merging separate
	 branches of a project...ability to lavel a given revision number
	 symbolically...effective security system"

Most of the messages were complimentary to RCS, and pretty downright
derogatory when it came to SCCS.  A few were good enough to explain some
of the technical issues (implementation details) to me.  Sounds like
RCS is the way to go.
	A side note:  evidently, this is a religious issue which comes up
every once in a while.  I'm sorry I revived it for those who've seen it
go by a thousand times, but by the number of responses I got who thought
it a good question and the requests for summaries, I'd say it was time
to go over it again:  the net population has evidently gone through sufficient
turnover to warrant it.
	Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond...
		---tpc---

	
-- 
...!{allegra | decvax | clyde | ihnp4 }!watmath!wateng!tpchmara