3 ms·

git / RCS serve very different purposes. RCS is a pretty excellent tool when you have a single file (like httpd.conf, hosts, a zone file) that you want to mana

git / RCS serve very different purposes. 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?"

lmm 13y ago
>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. Citation needed, because my experience is the exact opposite.
- peterwwillis 13y ago
  Git was released in 2005. I will bet you a dollar that about 80% of the sysadmins in the world have been working with some kind of revision control since before 2005. It follows that they would have been familiar with something other than the Git model. Combine this with the laughable idea that not every sysadmin knows git, and the parent statement makes sense. Also, your experience is probably not exactly the same as 80% of sysadmins. But I don't have a citation for that.
  - lmm 13y ago
    "some kind of revision control" =/= rcs, and eight years is quite a while. I'd happily bet that more sysadmins know git than rcs if you find a measurement.
    - ghshephard 13y ago
      While many sysadmins have heard of git, I've never run into one who has ever used it for anything more than just experimenting to learn the tool. For server based control, it's mostly CVS, and, more recently (last 10 years or so) subversion. For local file control it's all rcs .
      - lmm 13y ago
        3-5 years ago what I saw was some CVS, some subversion. Nowadays it's some subversion, some git, maybe a bit of CVS hanging around. I had literally never heard of any sysadmins (or in fact anyone except one aging college professor) still using rcs prior to this thread.
        ghshephard 13y ago
        That would explain it - you've probably been working with sysadmins who've been doing their job for less than 10 years. Any Unix sysadmin with more than 10 years experience knows rcs very well. You typically see subversion where there is a server involved in version control. It's what I learned in College, saw again at Netscape, again at Loudcloud/Opsware (though, for source control of code, they used Clearcase of all things. Shudder.) - always for the purpose of managing a single file. Once there was more than one file, something else was typically used.
        peterwwillis 13y ago
        If you've used Subversion, you've used CVS. If you've used CVS, you've used RCS. My whole point was that your average sysadmin is familiar with an RCS model, versus the Git model, which is incredibly different and a huge learning curve over older tools. There are a lot of sysadmins out there. Most of them are older than 25, and most of them do not work in Silicon Valley. They work on all kinds of systems, for all kinds of companies. Any company that's been in operation for more than 10 years has files managed by CVS, or RCS if they've been around longer. They probably also use other tools and systems you've never heard of. But that's OK. Today you'll get hired to manage new systems with new tools. In years to come, somebody will tell you how nobody uses SVN or Git anymore, and they've never heard of anyone that does.
isomorphic 13y ago
There have been attempts to address git's shortcomings with respect to independent revision control of a single file: There is the "zit" project at http://git.oblomov.eu/zit http://git.oblomov.eu/zit ...although it wasn't ideal for me, and it doesn't look like it's been updated in a while. E.g., these days that should be on GitHub! RCS really fits well with the use-case of /etc configuration files. It's a pity that Git doesn't function very well for that particular case.
- yrro 13y ago
  I've been using etckeeper on all my machines for a while. It is a wrapper around git + some hook scripts to preserve file permissions and the existence of empty directories. I can't imagine going back to an unmanaged /etc directory now.

lmm 13y ago

>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. Citation needed, because my experience is the exact opposite.

peterwwillis 13y ago
Git was released in 2005. I will bet you a dollar that about 80% of the sysadmins in the world have been working with some kind of revision control since before 2005. It follows that they would have been familiar with something other than the Git model. Combine this with the laughable idea that not every sysadmin knows git, and the parent statement makes sense. Also, your experience is probably not exactly the same as 80% of sysadmins. But I don't have a citation for that.
- lmm 13y ago
  "some kind of revision control" =/= rcs, and eight years is quite a while. I'd happily bet that more sysadmins know git than rcs if you find a measurement.
  - ghshephard 13y ago
    While many sysadmins have heard of git, I've never run into one who has ever used it for anything more than just experimenting to learn the tool. For server based control, it's mostly CVS, and, more recently (last 10 years or so) subversion. For local file control it's all rcs .
    - lmm 13y ago
      3-5 years ago what I saw was some CVS, some subversion. Nowadays it's some subversion, some git, maybe a bit of CVS hanging around. I had literally never heard of any sysadmins (or in fact anyone except one aging college professor) still using rcs prior to this thread.
      - ghshephard 13y ago
        That would explain it - you've probably been working with sysadmins who've been doing their job for less than 10 years. Any Unix sysadmin with more than 10 years experience knows rcs very well. You typically see subversion where there is a server involved in version control. It's what I learned in College, saw again at Netscape, again at Loudcloud/Opsware (though, for source control of code, they used Clearcase of all things. Shudder.) - always for the purpose of managing a single file. Once there was more than one file, something else was typically used.
      - peterwwillis 13y ago
        If you've used Subversion, you've used CVS. If you've used CVS, you've used RCS. My whole point was that your average sysadmin is familiar with an RCS model, versus the Git model, which is incredibly different and a huge learning curve over older tools. There are a lot of sysadmins out there. Most of them are older than 25, and most of them do not work in Silicon Valley. They work on all kinds of systems, for all kinds of companies. Any company that's been in operation for more than 10 years has files managed by CVS, or RCS if they've been around longer. They probably also use other tools and systems you've never heard of. But that's OK. Today you'll get hired to manage new systems with new tools. In years to come, somebody will tell you how nobody uses SVN or Git anymore, and they've never heard of anyone that does.

isomorphic 13y ago

There have been attempts to address git's shortcomings with respect to independent revision control of a single file: There is the "zit" project at http://git.oblomov.eu/zit http://git.oblomov.eu/zit ...although it wasn't ideal for me, and it doesn't look like it's been updated in a while. E.g., these days that should be on GitHub! RCS really fits well with the use-case of /etc configuration files. It's a pity that Git doesn't function very well for that particular case.

yrro 13y ago
I've been using etckeeper on all my machines for a while. It is a wrapper around git + some hook scripts to preserve file permissions and the existence of empty directories. I can't imagine going back to an unmanaged /etc directory now.