Bitkeeper in Linuxdevelopment :(

Joerg Schilling schilling at
Thu Feb 7 11:55:58 UTC 2002

>From: phil hunt <philh at>

>> A simple result of the fact that FSF stopped working on SCCS.
>> If you like to see free software to be used, you need to support it...
>> SCCS is the official standard for revision control.

>Don't most people use RCS or CVS?

*BSD was based on SCCS up to 1995 and most people did use SCCS up to 195 too.

As nobody did write nice higher level utilities based on SCCS it seems that
many people moved to CVS although the CVS file format is much more sesitive
to errors than the SCCS file format.

I don't own a POSIX.2-1990 standard but SUSv2 (UNIX-98) and POSIX-2001
both onluy mention SCCS as revision control.

I personally decided to keep with SCCS in the late 1980s because CVS was 
acting in a way similar to M$: there was a script to convert SCCS -> CVS 
but no way back. As I was not given the freedom to decide to go back, 
I did stay with SCCS. 


 EMail:joerg at (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at		(uni)  If you don't have iso-8859-1
       schilling at		(work) chars I am J"org Schilling

More information about the Discussion mailing list