Many thanks Rohan and Keith. Very interesting and useful feedback.
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 12 May 2007 02:06 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [OzTFS] Thoughts on Clear Case / TFS integration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] +10 for what Rohan says. We did the same thing - moved off of ClearCase to TFS and everyone on the team is much happier and much more productive. TFS requires far less admin support especially when you have multiple remote sites. CC multisite is a huge hack to work around their LAN oriented protocol (very chatty) that doesn't scale to the WAN. The huge headache with multisite is that each site essentially has their own branch that needs to be frequently merged with Main to keep sites in synch. This caused us all sorts of headaches especially WRT binary files that don't merge. BTW I don't see how CC gives you any "higher level" view than TFS does. Both allow you to set up a repository in which you can place whatever you want. CC calls it a VOB and TFS calls it a Team Project. Microsoft might have picked a less than ideal name because I think some folks confuse the project in Team Project with Visual Studio projects which are not the same. -- Keith From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pynor, Rohan [Audatex UK] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 1:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [OzTFS] Thoughts on Clear Case / TFS integration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Just to add my 2 cents worth to the clear case discussion... We have just migrated away from clearcase / clearquest _to_ TFS ( mainly due to our dissatisfaction with clearcase in particular) - Our experience was that CC was exceptionally slow - and basically unusable over VPN type connections - due to the heavy network usage (we suspected). Not having used source proxies in TFS (I believe this is a way of speeding up source control delivery over WAN type environments) - I believe that the equivalent in clearcase is using multi site to replicate source control repositories between multiple sites. Couple of points from my experience: * The way we had our projects set up was using UCM - meaning that all work on source control had to be associated with defects - the same as we are working for TFS * Work items cannot be transferred from one project to another - so if a work item is incorrectly created in a projects - it has to be replicated in the correct project. * CQ appeared to be more workflow configurable (ie: controlling what users can move defects between states) * I didn't feel that CC/CQ gave a level of abstraction between source and projects - it was (as we were using it ) strongly project based. * For us, the productivity gains over using TFS has far outweighed the few shortcomings functionality wise over CC/CQ - and then again they are probably there because we are not fully aware of the full capabilities of TFS :-) Hope this helps, Rohan ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Butcher, Justin Sent: 09 May 2007 01:41 To: [email protected] Cc: Brad Smith (AUSTRALIA) Subject: [OzTFS] Thoughts on Clear Case / TFS integration [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] HI All, I work for a large (by Australian Standards) government organisation (the ATO) that does a lot of software development across a range of platforms. We are increasing the scope of TFS usage to about 500 users in the very near future (currently about 200). We are currently evaluating the Clear Case and Clear Quest Product Suite with a view to understanding how it might either complement or replace TFS. We are currently using TFS to manage a number of projects including a fairly large project in which TFS manages several 100,000 lines of both Cobol and .Net code. The integration with the Cobol editor is quite reasonable, using the MS SCCI provider. We also have pockets of Eclipse (Java, MQ Series) and other platforms which are (or very soon will be) using TFS. I've noticed the following which seem to be limitations of either product and I was wondering if people could comment of the following points: 1. TFS tightly couples source code to work-items, reports and team collaboration. As a large enterprise with lots of teams and lots of projects over time, my team (enterprise architecture) wants to ensure that we have a view of the source code that is based on the software assets. We don't want the primary view of the code to be based on projects, which are centred around tasks, timelines and people. We want a view that shows how the source fits into the over-arching enterprise architecture framework. Because TFS uses the Team Project as the top-level organisational unit, source gets organisated around projects, rather than being organised as the resulting assets that projects deliver. It seems like Clear Case / Clear Quest supports this concept better, with a better layer of abstraction between source organisation and projects / workflow. But I've not used Clear Case. Am I right? 2. Does Clear Case support the idea of source proxies like TFS? 3. I know that TFS supports migration from Clear Case specifically and integration with Clear Case. Has anyone got real experience with this that they can share? Thanks, Justin. **************************************************************** IMPORTANT The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Privacy Hotline of the Australian Taxation Office, telephone 13 28 69 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. **************************************************************** This e-mail, any associated files and the information contained in them are confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error please notify the originator and delete the email immediately. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. E-mails to and from the company are monitored for operational reasons and in accordance with lawful business practices. Any opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the views of the company. The company does not conclude contracts by email and all negotiations are subject to contract. We make every effort to maintain our network free from computer viruses but accept no responsibility for any viruses which might be transferred by this e-mail. OzTFS.com - to unsubscribe from this list, send a message back to the list with 'unsubscribe' as the subject. Powered by mailenable.com - List managed by www.readify.net OzTFS.com - to unsubscribe from this list, send a message back to the list with 'unsubscribe' as the subject. Powered by mailenable.com - List managed by www.readify.net OzTFS.com - to unsubscribe from this list, send a message back to the list with 'unsubscribe' as the subject. Powered by mailenable.com - List managed by www.readify.net OzTFS.com - to unsubscribe from this list, send a message back to the list with 'unsubscribe' as the subject. Powered by mailenable.com - List managed by www.readify.net OzTFS.com - to unsubscribe from this list, send a message back to the list with 'unsubscribe' as the subject. Powered by mailenable.com - List managed by www.readify.net
