Correct. I had used both at work up until around 2005. The idiot large companies I worked at did not believe in Source Code Control. That is the one thing I liked about RCS/SCCS, once I checked out an item, no one could check in their changes unless they contacted me. Forcing a coordinated manual merge between us.
I tried to get our org on to something for a while, but got massive push back until 5 or 6 years ago when they setup corporate wide paid githup repo.
Before that, I found a small group of developers around 2005 that used CVS and they allowed me to leverage that for my group. But of course I was the only one who used it.
Back then I guess people loved loosing source code, which happened a lot until git.
30 years ago (1995) open source offerings: mostly CVS for large projects and RCS for smaller ones. On the proprietary side, the aged SCCS was available and used, while Perforce and Microsoft Visual Source Safe were being launched.
IN 1995, I think there were some proprietary offerings, one company in Massachusetts was purchased by IBM back then.
But on the minis (non-DEC) I worked on back then, there was nothing. We kept a specific drive that had source current source, but once in production you just copied the change version to that drive, replacing what was already there. As you can guess, changes disappeared often :) And there was no change history, but we would tag each line changed with our 3 character ID.
I published an updated extension of this post's linked article in Empirical Software Engineering. You can read it without a paywall at https://rdcu.be/b7FzE. You may also be interested to see the actual GitHub repository at https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo.
670,000 commits. Thats big. But only 2K merges? I assume push straight to master in most cases?
I don't think either SCCS or RCS tracked merges, so everything looks like a new revision.
Correct. I had used both at work up until around 2005. The idiot large companies I worked at did not believe in Source Code Control. That is the one thing I liked about RCS/SCCS, once I checked out an item, no one could check in their changes unless they contacted me. Forcing a coordinated manual merge between us.
I tried to get our org on to something for a while, but got massive push back until 5 or 6 years ago when they setup corporate wide paid githup repo.
Before that, I found a small group of developers around 2005 that used CVS and they allowed me to leverage that for my group. But of course I was the only one who used it.
Back then I guess people loved loosing source code, which happened a lot until git.
also rebases instead of merges wouldn't count as merges
I don't think the concept of a rebase existed before Bitbucker and Git.
What did source control look like 30 years ago? Was merges used a lot? I have only used Subversion and Git.
A stack of labelled backup tapes.
Whereas today, we have a stack of virtual backup tapes plus a DAG on the labels.
30 years ago (1995) open source offerings: mostly CVS for large projects and RCS for smaller ones. On the proprietary side, the aged SCCS was available and used, while Perforce and Microsoft Visual Source Safe were being launched.
IN 1995, I think there were some proprietary offerings, one company in Massachusetts was purchased by IBM back then.
But on the minis (non-DEC) I worked on back then, there was nothing. We kept a specific drive that had source current source, but once in production you just copied the change version to that drive, replacing what was already there. As you can guess, changes disappeared often :) And there was no change history, but we would tag each line changed with our 3 character ID.
I published an updated extension of this post's linked article in Empirical Software Engineering. You can read it without a paywall at https://rdcu.be/b7FzE. You may also be interested to see the actual GitHub repository at https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo.
Interesting to see the decisions they took regarding which flavours they chose to include.
[dead]
[dead]