> anything. E.g. GNU bash isn't even using VCS to this date (AFAIK)...
FWIW, bash is a well known example of key software that's maintained in the worst possible way, with emails for bug reporting and tracking and some manual labour that depends on one person for release management. I'll admit that it's a personal opinion but I haven't heard of a contrary opinion to date. Maybe you'll change that for me ;) Then let me provide one such disenting opinion, since I cannot see how it is the "worst possible way" -- this would imply that there is absolutey nothing worse do. Chet has maintained Bash for a very long time successfully, the setup works for him. As such, it cannot be the bottom worst but rather the opposite. In some ways I can think that maybe even the lack of VCS might be a good thing here. Jospeh mentioned that we should trust maintainers, so why not trust that bash in this regard lacking a VCS? And wouldn't it have been nice if Bash now had ChangeLog entries? :-)
