Re: Control of version

Ian Goddard wrote: > > Daniel, > > I have used RCS in the past. A recent post here described year 2000 > problems with SCCS. > > Whilst RCS or SCCS will deal with different versions of a given file > they don't, as far as I recollect, deal with file to file dependancies, > e.g. version x of one 4gl must be used with version y of some other 4gl > or version z of a .per files. I'm sure some of the commercial products, > and possibly public domain ones also, handle such issues - perhaps > someone would comment on this. The really big problem is controlling > program source against versions of the database. Anyone know of > solutions there? > > Ian > > Daniel Cernotto wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > You know any tools for control of version of 4gl, in Unix? > > > > TIA for information. > > > > Daniel Cernotto > > DBA > > Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe > > 1=B0 de Mayo 2832 - (3000) Santa Fe - Argentina > > TE (54) 42 504110 PVCS has additional components for configuration management, however like anything it requires a certain committment to the product, in the form of somebody taking care of it, and learning about it. You can take your software from Alpha to Beta to Charlie/whatever-C-is with the CM addition and maintain some control. For most shops I've ever worked in, the traditional components of RCS or SCCS are quite adequate. Just getting people to understand and use these are a step forward in and of themselves. RCS on HP/UX has a few features I've seen not available with the GNU release--but maybe I'm not up to date on what's out there. I'd stay away from SCCS for the risk of the year 2000 issues Jonathan pointed out earlier this month. If anything PVCS resembles RCS only PVCS has the features you want in RCS, but lack, such as configuration files, etc. The price difference between RCS and PVCS is dramatic, and for a professional shop, you get what you pay for. I know several shops that are on RCS as their professional product, and a couple on PVCS. PVCS is better but you have to pay for it directly. You may pay for RCS indirectly in additional cost for features lacking in RCS. As for file-dependency chaining, this is something that I'd handle in makefiles, but I learn new things every day. :-) If you must choose between SCCS and RCS or nothing at all you will pay for this in the long run anyway. At least get RCS, it's free and quite easy to use. If you want to convert to RCS from SCCS, stop by my site, there's a tool for it there...and some RCS wrappers. Jonathan also presented a modified version of sccs2rcs as well... :-) -- Tim Schaefer \\\\|// tschaefe@mindspring.com (6 6) ------------------------oOOo---( )---o00o--------- http://www.inxutil.com