Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcnc!ece-csc!ncrcae!ncr-sd!bigbang!blia!blipyramid!mao
From: mao@blipyramid.BLI.COM (Mike Olson)
Newsgroups: comp.text
Subject: Re: Using RCS for manuscripts
Message-ID: <11@blipyramid.BLI.COM>
Date: Mon, 5-Jan-87 12:52:05 EST
Article-I.D.: blipyram.11
Posted: Mon Jan  5 12:52:05 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Jan-87 19:00:01 EST
References: <2544@phri.UUCP> <4876@mimsy.UUCP>
Distribution: world
Organization: Britton Lee, Inc.
Lines: 17
Summary: no problem.

In article <2544@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
>	This is sort of a funny question, but I'd like to know what kinds
> of experiences people have had using RCS to maintain text documents (as
> opposed to source code)
> Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy

we use rcs to maintain almost all of our distributed documentation.  if
you're *very* careful about assigning symbolic names, you'll probably
find it useful.  we have.  we're not terribly concerned about the space
eaten up by the rcs files, because the development log that accompanies
them is useful.  being able to maintain both source code and its documentation
with the same package (and using the same symbolic names) is handy.

					mike olson

disclaimer:  all opinions expressed above are mine, and do not necessarily
	     represent the views of britton lee inc.