Subject: Re: CCL:RCS in scientific programming

From: Andrey V Khavryutchenko <[email-masked]>
Date: 21 Jul 1998 11:10:11 +0300

>>>>> "OJ" == "Kynn O Jones" writes:

 OJ> Dear CCL:
 
 OJ> For my research, I typically have several versions of any my code
 OJ> that I work with concurrently.  (Each version, of course, perforsm a
 OJ> different task).  The source files for these versions differ from

[...]

 OJ> I suppose that RCS was designed with a different user in mind, namely
 OJ> one who is working on one single project that advances mostly
 OJ> linearly, with only the occasional branch.  I wonder how those who,
 OJ> like me, have several versions of their code floating around, all of
 OJ> which are current and active, manage to make RCS work for them.

Well, having parallel _release_ versions is usually discouraged in software 
engineering.  A code should be restructured in a way, that will express the 
difference between releases in the software structure, not parallel
versions. 
 
 OJ> Alternatively, is there any other freely available source control
 OJ> software that would be more amenable to situations like mine?

I second Bill Ross with his suggestion to use CVS.  I use it for my
scientific and commercial software development and know no better tool,
esp. with such nice price ;)
 
 OJ> Lastly, I've considered getting hold of the source code for RCS and
 OJ> hacking it until I get something useful.  Has anyone in the list
 OJ> attempted something like this?

I don't think this is a right way.

>>>>> "r" == ross  writes:

 r> CVS may be the answer - it runs on top of RCS and manages
 r> branching/merging for multiple developers; its command interface
 r> obviates the need for human tracking of version numbers. It may not
 r> handle the desired parallel versions though.

CVS handles parallel versions pretty good.

-- 
SY, Andrey V Khavryutchenko	http://www.kbi.kiev.ua/~akhavr

Shick's Law:
	There is no problem a good miracle can't solve.