
GNU RCS 5.9.1 - lelf
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2013-10/msg00001.html
======
jordigh
Why is this still maintained? It even stores its own source under git:

[http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/rcs.git/?h=p](http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/rcs.git/?h=p)

So much for dogfooding...

~~~
Erwin
If you want to version control a single file locally with no fuss (exactly one
file,v file for storing changesets), I could still see it being handy.

It seems it has a maintainer that is very inclusive and accepts all
portability fixes. Which is nice enough; many newer open source products are
more like fireflies.

~~~
pjungwir
I worked at an agency around 2000-2005 that used RCS to keep files like
httpd.conf under source control. Not a great solution, but there were no free
"configuration management" tools then, and it was a pretty unrestricted place,
with developers and sysadmins sharing access to production systems. It's not
what I'd do today, but it was better than nothing and gave them some safety
without costing much in process.

~~~
_ak
One of my previous employers still uses CVS to version and deploy
configuration. One reason why git is not an option is the simple fact that you
can't check out subdirectories in git.

~~~
jessaustin
If one were using git, why would one _need_ to check out a directory?

I have no objection to people using the tools they prefer, but they should be
honest with themselves. The barrier to using git while working in a particular
directory lies in changing one's VCS habits, not in a deficiency in git.

------
_kst_
In most other VCSs, revision numbers apply to the entire repository. In RCS
and CVS, they apply to single files, which can be more convenient if you're
maintaining a collection of files that are largely independent of each other.

------
jsilence
I'm using rcs for quick and dirty versioning of my config files. Very easy to
do. Clean. Zero config. No dependencies. No fluff.

