next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Christopher Majka wrote: > On Tue, 26 Oct 1999, Bob Adams wrote: > > > Have to consider all these cases. > > But (if I understand Michael's proposal correctly) eliminating RCS > shouldn't impact on either of these situations, should it? Correct, it won't. The scripts will set the permissions correctly so that sharing between multiple editors will still work fine. > > I liked your idea earlier of having a simple dot file like .norcs that > > would indicate that editor and IP didn't want to have to deal with RCS. > > This is an interesting idea. I think a .norcs file would be equivalent to a directory without an RCS subdirectory, so .norcs isn't really required. There's a difference in philosophy I guess - with .norcs we were probably going to continue to provide RCS to new IPs by default. I don't think we need to do that, and the procedure to activate RCS will be simple: just create an RCS subdirectory for each directory where RCS is required, and make sure the RCS subdirectory is marked group writable and set-group-id (already taken care of by the directory creation scripts, so in theory an IPE could activate RCS without tech intervention). Michael
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects