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.