Re: philosophical question about frequent saving of files

>Why not replace the "royal pain" instead of tacking on more technology?
>
>sccs is quite low-overhead and doesn't require "buy-in" to something
>complex like CVS or subversion; it can be used personally. Or
>you can use rcs the same way. Then if you want to participate in a
>full-fledged VCS you can.
>Note how sccs/rcs etc evolved from personal backup systems originally
>written in shells and even as textbook examples of complex shell 
>programs. 
>  
>
Do you actually expect users to _change their VCS_? Do you actually 
think that encouraging developers to stop using CVS or Subversion is 
going to happen? Do you expect the tens of thousands of open source 
projects that currently use CVS (sometimes because their hosting company 
*cough* Collabnet *cough* uses CVS and there isn't anything you can do 
about it?) to switch to SCCS?

Auto-saving and (more importantly) local versioning is a no-brainer. It 
improves productivity. It helps the developer feel more confident in 
their IDE. It actually allows the developer greater freedom in trying 
out new things because they know they can always revert. If you've never 
tried the local versioning that JBuilder offers -- you don't know what 
your missing. There is no question that this feature would be a benefit 
to developers.

If sccs is so simple, then bundle it with NB and use it for local 
versioning.

>Tor, if you're distracted by your cell phone or IRC so much that
>you can't program, why not toss your cellphone and shut down the IRC?
>  
>
Come on Ivan, no need to be so arrogant. Perhaps you haven't discovered 
the many useful purposes that the telephone and IRC bring to the 
development process. That doesn't mean you have to be rude to Tor.

Richard