[Bitkeeper-users] Why SCCS, rather than RCS?

Larry McVoy lm@bitmover.com
Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:39:22 -0800


1. RCS has no integrity checks.
2. The myth about SCCS getting slower is nonsense and in fact, the opposite is
   true for the sort of revision history that is found in BitKeeper trees.  RCS
   is optimized for getting the most recent version on the trunk.  All other
   versions are slower and branch versions in RCS get really slow.  SCCS time 
   to get any version is constant.
3. I learned SCCS at Sun :)

On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 05:31:11PM -0500, Douglas Alan wrote:
> Is there a good reason why SCCS was used as the base for BitKeeper,
> rather than RCS?  I have always thought that RCS was generally
> considered superior, but I don't really have any reason for this belief,
> other than believing that SCCS stores a revision as diffs from the
> previous revision, rather than as diffs from the next revision, and this
> causes can cause SCCS to run slowly when fetching recent revisions for
> files with many revisions.
> 
> |>oug
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bitkeeper-users mailing list
> Bitkeeper-users@bitmover.com
> http://bitmover.com/mailman/listinfo/bitkeeper-users
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to the above URL, follow instruction at the bottom of the web page.

-- 
---
Larry McVoy              lm at bitmover.com          http://www.bitmover.com/lm