Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm nit particularly fond of git, I much prefer mercurial - but they are of course pretty much equivalent. Either way I have a hard time seeing which usecases aren't covered by the duo of RCS and mercurial (actually I'm very hard pressed to see why one would ever use RCS over mercurial, but no question RCS is simpler). At least something like fossil have some actually unique features....


That was ESR's conclusion as well. SRC is just a simple wrapper around RCS.


If you want a simple wrapper around RCS (or at least RCS semantics), why not just use CVS.

CVS has sequential numbers. Well, sort of: 1.1, 1.2, ... unless you branch. Close enough.

It works with individual files well enough (and in fact not all that well with clusters of them).

CVS started in 1986 as in fact a shell-scripted wrapper around RCS.


To a newbie, they don't seem that equivalent. Mercurial is much easier to understand, imo.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: