Path: utzoo!utgpu!tmsoft!tslanpar!woods
From: woods@tslanpar.UUCP (Greg A. Woods )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: SCCS vs. RCS
Summary: This is not really a followup, but more of a comment and question
Keywords: SCCS RCS version control VCS vc revision
Message-ID: <82@tslanpar.UUCP>
Date: 26 Jan 88 00:07:59 GMT
References: <743@dragon.UUCP> <720003@hpclskh.HP.COM> <7087@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Reply-To: woods@tslanpar.UUCP ( -Greg A. Woods- )
Distribution: world
Organization: G. A. W. Consulting
Lines: 26

I have used both SCCS, and an MS-DOS (yeah, I know...) version called VCS
(Polytron).  I have had little exposure to RCS.

From my experience with SCCS, and from what I know of RCS, VCS is more of an
RCS look-alike, though the authors (marketeers) say they took the best
features of all.

The one thing that is missing from SCCS that was quite simple with VCS is
meta-version naming scheme.  (Product version names, as opposed to file
revision ID's, where a version incorporates many files of different
revisions.)  I would imagine that RCS has this.

One thing that is MUCH more difficult with SCCS than it was with VCS is to
hide all of the special files in another directory.  What makes it hard with
SCCS is that none of the commands support an option or environment variable
to accomplish this task, and none of the make rules properly support such a
feature either.  (One could write a new set of make rules, and use the little
documented "include" feature).

If I have missed something with the use of SCCS, or if another simple tool
exists to facilitate version naming, I would like to hear about it.
-- 
						Greg Woods.

UUCP: utgpu!woods, utgpu!{ontmoh, tmsoft!tslanpar}!woods, woods@tslanpar
VOICE: (416) 242-7572		LOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, Canada