On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Pavel Sanda <[email protected]> wrote: > Nico Williams wrote: >> I see the smiley. I hope to convince you to stop the use of RCS :) > > Then you will need to show better arguments :) I was talking about single > lyx documents 50-400 pages, not about linux kernel. > I'm really happy that I can use RCS, because I suspect the fileformat > and commandline switches I need to maintain in codebase or tinker with > will be the same after 20 years when 50% of current VCSs around will be > unmaintained corpses. So durability from 70s is advantage!
Even for single-file LyX "projects", if I render into text form or HTML or LaTeX, I like to commit the rendered forms as well: so I can browse rendered file history. Suddenly a single-file project == multi-file project and I care about commit atomicity. I also have entire swaths of my home directory in git (being very careful not to commit files with passwords or keys in them). This nicely covers the one-file LyX document case, and it's much easier to use than RCS (no need to lock/unlock files, checkout/checking, just git add/commit and move alont). >> Simple for one file. Not simple for more than one. Utterly useless >> for any project with more than a handful of files, or more than a >> handful of people editing the same files, or when you can't use >> NFS/whateverFS. > > No doubt, but I was not really talking about zillion file projects > but about real life scenario with LyX. Another scenarios are possible > as well, hence is silly to try fight whether git or RCS in general > terms. Indeed. I just want LyX to not ever run a git checkout command. Not even give users the option: it can be destructive! I also want LyX to limit itself to informational actions only in the case of git-like VCSes (Mercurial, Fossil, ...). Please don't let this get lost in the noise about how to handle simple version control tasks. Nico --
