From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: moving SCCS later in vc-handled-backends Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:58:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <200906241458.n5OEw9ND002207@godzilla.ics.uci.edu> References: <200906230701.n5N71kIi007475@godzilla.ics.uci.edu> <877hz3z6z0.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <874ou7m4dj.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87zlbyyelm.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <200906231909.n5NJ9Jsw016825@godzilla.ics.uci.edu> <87y6rixjcs.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <200906240652.n5O6qWAh026050@godzilla.ics.uci.edu> <20090624075137.GB13630@tomas> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1245859704 6805 80.91.229.12 (24 Jun 2009 16:08:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:08:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" , Chong Yidong , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: tomas@tuxteam.de Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 24 18:08:17 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MJV1A-0006YD-8g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:08:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41820 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MJV19-0006om-HK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:08:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MJTx6-0005nm-7l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:59:56 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MJTx1-0005lR-LH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:59:55 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59784 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MJTx1-0005lC-4h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:59:51 -0400 Original-Received: from barrelv2.ics.uci.edu ([128.195.1.114]:36391) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MJTx0-0007G5-AI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:59:50 -0400 Original-Received: from godzilla.ics.uci.edu (godzilla.ics.uci.edu [128.195.10.101]) by barrelv2.ics.uci.edu (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n5OEwA5i014052; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:58:10 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: (from dann@localhost) by godzilla.ics.uci.edu (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.6/Submit) id n5OEw9ND002207; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:58:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090624075137.GB13630@tomas> (tomas@tuxteam.de's message of "Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:51:37 +0200") Original-Lines: 18 X-ICS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ICS-MailScanner-ID: n5OEwA5i014052 X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-1.44, required 5, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44) X-ICS-MailScanner-From: dann@godzilla.ics.uci.edu X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:111685 Archived-At: tomas@tuxteam.de writes: > I have to concur with Stephen here. *If* someone is using SCCS with an > odd file managed by RCS, it'd be better having the SCCS commit fail > loudly (and leading the user to investigate the cause) than the RCS > commit failing (nearly) silently, leading possibly to a botched backup > much further down the time line. Can you please describe precisely the scenario that you have in mind? Because the above is not a problem. It is not possible to commit at the same time files that are managed by different backends. More, the relative order of RCS and SCCS stays the same, so the behavior for RCS and SCCS stays the same. > Note that I'm no user of RCS, much less of SCCS, so take this with the > appropriate two fists of salt.