🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9205131814.AA19527@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:
[...]
>In principle, the FSF could play the role of the source site for this.
>In practice, we can't, for two reasons: we don't have enough disk
>space to keep old source versions, and we can't undertake the
>administrative burden of making these arrangements--it would be too
>much trouble if we had to negotiate with a number of sysadmins before
>deleting any version of the source.  But there are many source archive
>sites, and probably several of them will make such arrangements, thus
>splitting up the burden.
[...]

Why doesn't FSF use RCS (a product that they distribute)?  That would simplify
the disk space problem; CVS is said to alleviate the administrative problems.
True or false? In an environment where dozens of configurations abound, I
would think that this would be a major win.  Is this an implicit statement that
FSF finds these tools wanting or is there something I don't know?

kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)