Alan McKinnon wrote: > These days rcs is primarily a sysadmin tool whereas CVS/SVN/Git are > primarily developer's tools
RCS sucks as a sysadmin tool, for two reasons: (a) it does not track a file's permissions, and (b) in many cases several files have to be changed at the same time to achieve some desired goal – even for very simple sysadmin tasks like adding a user –, which RCS can't represent. (Even CVS and SVN can't really do it; it takes a changeset-oriented VCS like TLA, Git or Mercurial to get it right.) The proper thing to do, while we're discussing this, is to use something like etckeeper [1] on top of Mercurial or Git. This has the added benefit of being able to automatically push changes to a remote repository as they are committed, i.e., instant configuration backup. [1] http://joeyh.name/code/etckeeper/ > But I'm not advocating we test rcs as we really don't need to do > exhaustive testing. It's after all a statistical numbers game. I agree that this does not belong in a LPIC-1 or LPIC-2 exam. One might put it on the list for a hypothetical LPIC-3-level »best sysadmin practices« exam if it wasn't as much of a contentious issue as it is. Anselm -- Anselm Lingnau ... Linup Front GmbH ... Linux-, Open-Source- & Netz-Schulungen [email protected], +49(0)6151-9067-103, Fax -299, www.linupfront.de Linup Front GmbH, Postfach 100121, 64201 Darmstadt, Germany Sitz: Weiterstadt (AG Darmstadt, HRB7705), Geschäftsführer: Oliver Michel _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
