From: Erwin S. Andreasen (erwin@ANDREASEN.COM)
Date: 08/27/98

On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Doppleganger Software wrote:

> Personally, I believe that a MUD should only have ONE coder.  I have
> coded for MUD's with multiple coders and thet tend to be very
> disorganized (pieces of code lying around all over the place, no one
> knows who did what and who is working on what) or too limiting (RCS
> systems)  With one coder, you know who installed what, what you added it

Depends on how you use RCS. I have at one point had 4 people coding on AR.
All had a copy of the source, and editing and tested until they were

Then they make a diff of all changes - easy using RCS. They send that diff
to me, and I integrate it in my source, together with any changes I might
have done. This is my source on my machine, not the MUD machine.

When I'm happy with the changes and have tested them sufficiently, I make
a diff of my and all the other people's changes, then upload and apply
that diff on the MUD machine.

Using diff it's very easy to review what other people have done - and I
keep all copies of the diffs I have sent and others have received. In
addition, all changes to code are put into a changelog (which can be
viewed online, see - entries in there
are in a special format like this:

D-  Fixed XYZZY spell
Q%  Added FOOBAR skill

Where the first letter denotes the person who performed the changed, and
the second the severity (bugfix, minor change, major change, critical

I have a small document that describe this in further detail and explains
use of RCS at:

<>      Herlev, Denmark              UNIX System Programmer
<URL:>     <*>         (not speaking for) DDE

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/15/00 PST