On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Larry Jones wrote:
> SCCS can retrieve any revision in one pass through the file. As you
> say, there are the equivalent of "#ifdefs" that specify which revisions
> include the following lines , so there's very little processing time,
> it's mostly just I/O time. CVS as currently implemented has to read the
> entire RCS file before doing anything, so I'd be very surprised if it's
> significantly faster.
Larry --
When was the last time you used SCCS for a large project? RCS is *way*
faster, at least at getting the latest version of the file for edit.
It's not super easy for me to test right now, but I imagine CVS is
equally quick.
All of this discussion is interesting to me, but what I'd really
like to see is something done about the sccs2rcs script. Is there
any real gain in continuing to ship it with CVS given the fact that it
doesn't seem to be maintained by anyone (at least, no one wants to take
responsibility for it) and it doesn't pertain to the main functionality
of CVS? Why not move it to http://www.loria.fr/~molli/cvs-index.html
as contrib/README suggests and out of the official CVS tarball
releases? What's your opinion of this idea?
Michael Sterrett
-Mr. Bones.-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
