mark123’s database schema thread prompted this one.

RCS (Revision Control System) is an old, but wonderful utility that enables you to efficiently store all revisions of your developing project code.

When I began work at Qualcomm, designing digital logic for chips in mobile phones, all team members used RCS to store revisions of their VHDL code. As chips became more complex, with multiple engineers working on the same code, we switched to CVS (Concurrent Versions System).

But now that I’m retired I’ve reverted to RCS. I’m the only person working on my code, and RCS is much easier to administer.

RCS is very efficient for text files. Only changes are actually stored. When you check out a file RCS reconstructs it from the initial version through all changes. That happens with no perceptible delay, even for large files with many revisions.

RCS is automatically in macOS, and probably available on open source software sites for any system.

We used RCS years ago at work. Switched to CVS a long time ago. I switched to CVS at home, too.

I've been using RCS for decades, and SCCS before that, ci(1) (check in) and co(1) (check out) are pretty much muscle memory attached before and after editing a text configuration file (I use both vi and xemacs for these chores). The fact that it is included in the default distributions of most unix-based OS's helps.

It is especially helpful when multiple people are working on a file, although it can be frustrating when the others leave stale locks around, or when they are breaking your locks before you are done.

There are other version control systems that many swear by, but it has never seemed imperative to learn them. Although if I was starting using an RCS today, I probably wouldn't be looking past git.

I remember using RCS about 30 years ago. Since then we've gone through CVS, VSS, Subversion, and now Git. I liked RCS, it was simple to use and worked well. CVS was fine too. VSS sucked, Subversion was a lot better. Git, after several years, I'm finally getting used to. I'm convinced it hates me though. The one thing I do like about it is that pulls are MUCH faster than with Subversion, otherwise I preferred Subversion.

quote:

Originally posted by Expert308:
I remember using RCS about 30 years ago. Since then we've gone through CVS, VSS, Subversion, and now Git. I liked RCS, it was simple to use and worked well. CVS was fine too. VSS sucked, Subversion was a lot better. Git, after several years, I'm finally getting used to. I'm convinced it hates me though. The one thing I do like about it is that pulls are MUCH faster than with Subversion, otherwise I preferred Subversion.

For projects with only one or a few people working on them, they're pretty much all fine (and on ANY important project of more than trivial size, even with only one person working on it, not using some type of version control is nuts).

For larger projects, with multiple people or especially multiple teams working on different parts of the project at the same time, Git is so, so much better than tools like CVS or SVN. The more people working on a project, the more the Git branch/merge paradigm beats the pants off the older check out/check in paradigm.

It's not specific to one version control system, but for medium-to-large scale software development, the rise of "continuous integration" tools tied into whatever version control system you are using is a game changer. CI tools automatically run the codebase's test suite any time a check in/push/merge happens and warns you and won't let you do it if the check in/push/merge breaks something. The good ones also measure test coverage and warn you if you add too much code without test coverage.

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
I've been using RCS for decades, and SCCS before that, ...

Yup, we'd been using SCCS before RCS, too.

Come to think of it: My ex-employer was still using RCS when I retired. We (a couple engineers) had developed a system for maintaining AutoCAD versioning using RCS.

My guess is that system has fallen into disuse and they're probably doing something else now. I was the last of the software people/network admins left that could still maintain that custom system.

The software dept. was using CVS when I retired.

I've only used git for 10 years now.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
We used RCS years ago at work. Switched to CVS a long time ago. I switched to CVS at home, too.

Similar, though not sure we used RCS much. After CVS, went on to other stuff (don’t remember details) that was a huge pain in the neck. On the home side used CVS for a little while, but haven’t in a long time. Am beginning to think I need to go back to it, and with good comments, on firewall configuration and dns files. It’s a pain when stuff works for years and by the time I have to revisit I’ve forgotten much of what I did and why I did it that way…

quote:

Originally posted by Expert308:
I remember using RCS about 30 years ago. Since then we've gone through CVS, VSS, Subversion, and now Git. I liked RCS, it was simple to use and worked well. CVS was fine too. VSS sucked, Subversion was a lot better. Git, after several years, I'm finally getting used to. I'm convinced it hates me though. The one thing I do like about it is that pulls are MUCH faster than with Subversion, otherwise I preferred Subversion.

I’m here. Sans the VSS part, that is.