Re: Two question about VC.

[Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu>]

Andre Spiegel wrote:

   >   Please note, however, that branches are not supported for SCCS.

   I am not sure about MCVS, SVN, and Arch, but if we support branches for
   all of them (which I tend to assume), then the replacement is correct.

In the text I am going to install occurs earlier:

+ In the following, we discuss mainly RCS, SCCS and CVS.  Nearly
+ everything said about CVS applies to Gnu Arch, Subversion and Meta-CVS
+ as well.

"Nearly" allows for the possibility of some exceptions, so complete
(well, let us hope) accuracy is only claimed for RCS, SCCS and CVS.
Short of somebody familiar with all of MCVS, SVN, and Arch carefully
going through the entire Emacs manual section on VC, I guess that we
can not do better than that.  The sentence:

   >   Please note, however, that branches are not supported for SCCS.

seems reasonably safe within that context.  Several other claims in
the Emacs section on VC only seem safe with the same qualifications.

   That final sentence could be clarified as:

     So we suggest that you return from time to time to CVS-only operation,
   committing your local changes back to the repository using 'C-u C-x v v
   cvs RET'.

Thanks, that is what I am going to use.

Sincerely,

Luc.