People may have information stored under RCS that they still want to access. It doesn't look like there's a lot of work being done to add new features, but having the ability to run RCS on new machines seems like it's a good hedge against data loss.
We're not using RCS, but we use GNU CSSC for an old SCCS codebase.
Many people here are keyed into 'new hotness' startup projects. But there are a lot of us out here maintaining 20+ year old codebases for products in maintenance/support mode only. Migrating them to modern version control is a tough sell. CSSC in particular lets me at least host the code on something modern.
It's not maintained by start-up people or MBAs so they don't have to handicap themselves in a world of trite buzzwords. Also, it's still maintained because people still use it. Figured that would be obvious.
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.
Adding to what others said, someone I know is planning to use this as a starting point for understanding version control systems. The reason stated was it's simplicity.
RCS is a pretty excellent tool when you have a single file (like httpd.conf, hosts, a zone file) that you want to manage on a server. 80%+ sysadmins know how to ci/co and use rcs in that context. Likely less than 10% of sysadmins would grok the use of git in that context.
Also - does git even have the concept of "check out with lock, check in free lock, etc?"
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.
[+] [-] jordigh|12 years ago|reply
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/rcs.git/?h=p
So much for dogfooding...
[+] [-] trothamel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gnoway|12 years ago|reply
Many people here are keyed into 'new hotness' startup projects. But there are a lot of us out here maintaining 20+ year old codebases for products in maintenance/support mode only. Migrating them to modern version control is a tough sell. CSSC in particular lets me at least host the code on something modern.
[+] [-] peterwwillis|12 years ago|reply
It's not maintained by start-up people or MBAs so they don't have to handicap themselves in a world of trite buzzwords. Also, it's still maintained because people still use it. Figured that would be obvious.
[+] [-] Erwin|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bch|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pcx66|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ghshephard|12 years ago|reply
RCS is a pretty excellent tool when you have a single file (like httpd.conf, hosts, a zone file) that you want to manage on a server. 80%+ sysadmins know how to ci/co and use rcs in that context. Likely less than 10% of sysadmins would grok the use of git in that context.
Also - does git even have the concept of "check out with lock, check in free lock, etc?"
[+] [-] Diederich|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonyplee|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _kst_|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jsilence|12 years ago|reply