Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)
Guy Teverovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It can be setup in ClearCase in 5 minutes. Create a bunch of dynamic views each with it's own brunch and script the hourly/nightly builds inside each view. Couple of one-liners will suffice. I wasn't clear. All the work was scripting builds. No CVS tweaking was needed. You are assuming that a build script is a one-liner - depends on what you build. I didn't say it was a single project. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 22:00, Shachar Tal wrote: snip.. And how much did the time it took you to learn to do that, cost your company? One 2-day course at Rational and a crashburn accelerated course of migrating Windows VOBs from NT domain to another AD domain, while preserving all the credentials and views, rollback as a result of performance issues and another migration. I must admit that moving around VOBs of total 30Gb is rather exhausting. Kind of makes you dig into the documentation before you run a 7-8 hour job on the VOBs. Just today I had a discussion with one of our developers regarding a new project: remote site does not have CC licenses and our developers do not want to switch to CVS. It looks like we are going to write a script suite to sync CVS with CC to make everyone happy :-) Cheers, Guy -- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 11:33, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: Guy Teverovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It can be setup in ClearCase in 5 minutes. Create a bunch of dynamic views each with it's own brunch and script the hourly/nightly builds inside each view. Couple of one-liners will suffice. I wasn't clear. All the work was scripting builds. No CVS tweaking was needed. You are assuming that a build script is a one-liner - depends on what you build. I didn't say it was a single project. Actually, I assumed that the build scripts are already in place. The ones I'm used to span couple thousands lines, do debug/release builds on 2 platforms and run test suite for each build and it's all done using CC's CLI and shell scripts. Runs smoothly since before my time in the company, which makes it several years... Now back to where we started: there are quality closed source products with the flexibility you want and might never thought about it. Not many, but they exist. That is all I was trying to say. Guy -- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)
On Tuesday 18 November 2003 04:22, Guy Teverovsky wrote: CVS is not: version control mechanism which is content aware and action driven. It lacks inline documentation features and code maintenance (bugs, features) tracking... Actually, CVS is a version control system and *that's it*. ClearCase is simply much more. It's like trying to compare Sendmail to Exchange. Exchange has a mail server inside but to call Exchange a mail server is ridiculous. (save me the jokes about the bugs in BOTH Exchange and sendmail, I've hearde them all. Hell, I invented a few of them.. :-) Have I mentioned the wink-ing ? Suppose you have an app that compiles 5 hours and another developer has already done another build and parts of the objects can be reused. As much as you might not like the product, it saves a hell LOT of time as the version control mechanism will bring you already compiled parts from the network. Now consider an 6-7 hour build on a high-end workstation... Well, I am starting to sound as a sales man, so I will stop here. Which is available seperatly in Open Source world, as ccache. Which brings me to my next related topic: Open Source software tends to create small flexible tools that do a single thing and do it well (e.g. CVS). You can combine several such tools to create a whole pacage that covers your needs (e.g. cvs + bugzilla + ccache). Closed Source software tends to build big packages that try to do everything. Some people prefer the flexability of multiple integratable single packets. Some people prefer the full turnkey solution of the closed source world. I'd leave my personal opionion of it for now :-) Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] Codefidence. A name you can trust (tm) http://www.codefidence.com Half of one of my eyes is already open. I'm going to make coffee now... -- Kathi 16:08:04 = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)
If only the small integratable single-minded tools were *easily* integratable, I suspect Rational would have gone of business a few years ago. Shachar Tal Verint Systems -Original Message- From: Gilad Ben-Yossef [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:38 AM To: Guy Teverovsky; Linux-IL mailing list Cc: Tal, Shachar; 'Shachar Shemesh' Subject: Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?) On Tuesday 18 November 2003 04:22, Guy Teverovsky wrote: CVS is not: version control mechanism which is content aware and action driven. It lacks inline documentation features and code maintenance (bugs, features) tracking... Actually, CVS is a version control system and *that's it*. ClearCase is simply much more. It's like trying to compare Sendmail to Exchange. Exchange has a mail server inside but to call Exchange a mail server is ridiculous. (save me the jokes about the bugs in BOTH Exchange and sendmail, I've hearde them all. Hell, I invented a few of them.. :-) Have I mentioned the wink-ing ? Suppose you have an app that compiles 5 hours and another developer has already done another build and parts of the objects can be reused. As much as you might not like the product, it saves a hell LOT of time as the version control mechanism will bring you already compiled parts from the network. Now consider an 6-7 hour build on a high-end workstation... Well, I am starting to sound as a sales man, so I will stop here. Which is available seperatly in Open Source world, as ccache. Which brings me to my next related topic: Open Source software tends to create small flexible tools that do a single thing and do it well (e.g. CVS). You can combine several such tools to create a whole pacage that covers your needs (e.g. cvs + bugzilla + ccache). Closed Source software tends to build big packages that try to do everything. Some people prefer the flexability of multiple integratable single packets. Some people prefer the full turnkey solution of the closed source world. I'd leave my personal opionion of it for now :-) Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] Codefidence. A name you can trust (tm) http://www.codefidence.com Half of one of my eyes is already open. I'm going to make coffee now... -- Kathi 16:08:04 This electronic message contains information from Verint Systems, which may be privileged and confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by replying to this email. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)
I think this is exactly the price you pay when choosing these kind of tools, or more generally, doing in the unix way: You just take some overhead explicitly onto *your* head but you are left with very flexible, hence powerfull, set of tools, which can be combined in numerous ways to do just about any task you choose (in principle). you do not have *such* flexability, usually, in closed source (graphic?) application. this power lures in the command line land. Its raw power, but roughness in usage, against fixed (closed) methods/ways to use, but the ease of that usage. Well, this trade off can be phrased in many ways, but the point mentioned in the mesasge I'm replying to is, IMHO, talks exactly on that trade off. Your preference might vary. boaz. Tal, Shachar wrote: If only the small integratable single-minded tools were *easily* integratable, I suspect Rational would have gone of business a few years ago. Shachar Tal Verint Systems -Original Message- From: Gilad Ben-Yossef [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:38 AM To: Guy Teverovsky; Linux-IL mailing list Cc: Tal, Shachar; 'Shachar Shemesh' Subject: Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?) On Tuesday 18 November 2003 04:22, Guy Teverovsky wrote: CVS is not: version control mechanism which is content aware and action driven. It lacks inline documentation features and code maintenance (bugs, features) tracking... Actually, CVS is a version control system and *that's it*. ClearCase is simply much more. It's like trying to compare Sendmail to Exchange. Exchange has a mail server inside but to call Exchange a mail server is ridiculous. (save me the jokes about the bugs in BOTH Exchange and sendmail, I've hearde them all. Hell, I invented a few of them.. :-) Have I mentioned the wink-ing ? Suppose you have an app that compiles 5 hours and another developer has already done another build and parts of the objects can be reused. As much as you might not like the product, it saves a hell LOT of time as the version control mechanism will bring you already compiled parts from the network. Now consider an 6-7 hour build on a high-end workstation... Well, I am starting to sound as a sales man, so I will stop here. Which is available seperatly in Open Source world, as ccache. Which brings me to my next related topic: Open Source software tends to create small flexible tools that do a single thing and do it well (e.g. CVS). You can combine several such tools to create a whole pacage that covers your needs (e.g. cvs + bugzilla + ccache). Closed Source software tends to build big packages that try to do everything. Some people prefer the flexability of multiple integratable single packets. Some people prefer the full turnkey solution of the closed source world. I'd leave my personal opionion of it for now :-) Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] Codefidence. A name you can trust (tm) http://www.codefidence.com Half of one of my eyes is already open. I'm going to make coffee now... -- Kathi 16:08:04 This electronic message contains information from Verint Systems, which may be privileged and confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by replying to this email. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003, Tal, Shachar wrote about RE: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?): If only the small integratable single-minded tools were *easily* integratable, I suspect Rational would have gone of business a few years ago. Why do they need to be easily integratable? What if it will take your sysadmin a whole day to do this integration? And what if you pay a services company (like IBM previously mentioned in this thread) to provide you with a turnkey solution? Nobody said ever said that every user should need to install and configure free software on his/her own. You might ask, well, if it costs me money, why is the free-software solution any different from the propriatry one? Well, there's a big difference. The free software solution won't charge you by user (haven't you ever seen developers shout across the open space please log out of the version control software, I need a license!?). The free software solution will still be available when you decide to switch to a different platform, CPU, or operating system. If a bug in the program seriously annoys you, you can hire someone to fix it for you (with commercial software, you'll need to beg the manufacturer to fix it or give you partial sources.) Note, however, that some special scenarios - like 100 people working full-time on a single huge code - are simply not useful in the free software world, which is why you don't see free software catering to those needs. Also, free software tends to cater to the needs of people who write it (namely, developers) rather than managers and so on. The managers sometimes don't like it. For example, in a previous workplace I was asked to switch from Bugzilla to a commercial bug tracking software (that was integrated with the version control system). It was horrible - while bugzilla allowed me a lot of freedom and a lot of power (to discuss bugs with others, to pass bugs between developers), the commercial one was very rigid and very manager-oriented (most of the decisions required manager rights to be done, it was impossible to write comments on bugs, etc.). For me (and some other developers), the commercial solution was simply WORSE than the free software one. But it wasn't us making the decision of which software to use - it was the managers, and to them the commercial software was more appealing. And if you think that free software is hard to integrate, wait till you here this: while Bugzilla was useful to us out-of-the-box, the commercial product had so many problems that we couldn't use it until one person worked on it for nearly a month (!) tweaking the myriad of scripts, parameters and other crap that came with it. So much for easy integration... And at no point did anyone stop to ask why are we paying thousands of dollars for this crap? -- Nadav Har'El|Tuesday, Nov 18 2003, 23 Heshvan 5764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone: +972-53-790466, ICQ 13349191 |And now for some feedback: http://nadav.harel.org.il |EEE = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)
I agree with you. Though, what Rational did that make their ClearCase product relatively successful, is the relative ease with which you can script their products. You can write triggers to be invoked at key steps in their work processes, or you can dispense with their work processes altogether and implement your own. Shachar Tal Verint Systems -Original Message- From: Boaz Rymland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 4:40 PM To: Linux-IL mailing list Subject: Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?) I think this is exactly the price you pay when choosing these kind of tools, or more generally, doing in the unix way: You just take some overhead explicitly onto *your* head but you are left with very flexible, hence powerfull, set of tools, which can be combined in numerous ways to do just about any task you choose (in principle). you do not have *such* flexability, usually, in closed source (graphic?) application. this power lures in the command line land. Its raw power, but roughness in usage, against fixed (closed) methods/ways to use, but the ease of that usage. Well, this trade off can be phrased in many ways, but the point mentioned in the mesasge I'm replying to is, IMHO, talks exactly on that trade off. Your preference might vary. boaz. Tal, Shachar wrote: If only the small integratable single-minded tools were *easily* integratable, I suspect Rational would have gone of business a few years ago. Shachar Tal Verint Systems -Original Message- From: Gilad Ben-Yossef [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:38 AM To: Guy Teverovsky; Linux-IL mailing list Cc: Tal, Shachar; 'Shachar Shemesh' Subject: Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?) On Tuesday 18 November 2003 04:22, Guy Teverovsky wrote: CVS is not: version control mechanism which is content aware and action driven. It lacks inline documentation features and code maintenance (bugs, features) tracking... Actually, CVS is a version control system and *that's it*. ClearCase is simply much more. It's like trying to compare Sendmail to Exchange. Exchange has a mail server inside but to call Exchange a mail server is ridiculous. (save me the jokes about the bugs in BOTH Exchange and sendmail, I've hearde them all. Hell, I invented a few of them.. :-) Have I mentioned the wink-ing ? Suppose you have an app that compiles 5 hours and another developer has already done another build and parts of the objects can be reused. As much as you might not like the product, it saves a hell LOT of time as the version control mechanism will bring you already compiled parts from the network. Now consider an 6-7 hour build on a high-end workstation... Well, I am starting to sound as a sales man, so I will stop here. Which is available seperatly in Open Source world, as ccache. Which brings me to my next related topic: Open Source software tends to create small flexible tools that do a single thing and do it well (e.g. CVS). You can combine several such tools to create a whole pacage that covers your needs (e.g. cvs + bugzilla + ccache). Closed Source software tends to build big packages that try to do everything. Some people prefer the flexability of multiple integratable single packets. Some people prefer the full turnkey solution of the closed source world. I'd leave my personal opionion of it for now :-) Gilad -- Gilad Ben-Yossef [EMAIL PROTECTED] Codefidence. A name you can trust (tm) http://www.codefidence.com Half of one of my eyes is already open. I'm going to make coffee now... -- Kathi 16:08:04 This electronic message contains information from Verint Systems, which may be privileged and confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by replying to this email. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] This electronic message contains information from Verint Systems, which may be privileged and confidential. The information
RE: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)
Easily doesn't mean a sysadmin for a day. Easily means not having to invest considerable man-power into making cvs and diff and branches and IDE integration and nightly building and whatnot work together. YMMV for the definition of considerable. I more than agree with you on the other points you raise. (As for shouting for a clearcase license, we had a shortage of CC licenses and a coworker who you could call a Loud Howard... funny story, really...) Shachar Tal Verint Systems -Original Message- From: Nadav Har'El [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 5:45 PM To: Tal, Shachar Cc: 'Gilad Ben-Yossef'; Guy Teverovsky; Linux-IL mailing list; 'Shachar Shemesh' Subject: Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?) On Tue, Nov 18, 2003, Tal, Shachar wrote about RE: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?): If only the small integratable single-minded tools were *easily* integratable, I suspect Rational would have gone of business a few years ago. Why do they need to be easily integratable? What if it will take your sysadmin a whole day to do this integration? And what if you pay a services company (like IBM previously mentioned in this thread) to provide you with a turnkey solution? Nobody said ever said that every user should need to install and configure free software on his/her own. You might ask, well, if it costs me money, why is the free-software solution any different from the propriatry one? Well, there's a big difference. The free software solution won't charge you by user (haven't you ever seen developers shout across the open space please log out of the version control software, I need a license!?). The free software solution will still be available when you decide to switch to a different platform, CPU, or operating system. If a bug in the program seriously annoys you, you can hire someone to fix it for you (with commercial software, you'll need to beg the manufacturer to fix it or give you partial sources.) Note, however, that some special scenarios - like 100 people working full-time on a single huge code - are simply not useful in the free software world, which is why you don't see free software catering to those needs. Also, free software tends to cater to the needs of people who write it (namely, developers) rather than managers and so on. The managers sometimes don't like it. For example, in a previous workplace I was asked to switch from Bugzilla to a commercial bug tracking software (that was integrated with the version control system). It was horrible - while bugzilla allowed me a lot of freedom and a lot of power (to discuss bugs with others, to pass bugs between developers), the commercial one was very rigid and very manager-oriented (most of the decisions required manager rights to be done, it was impossible to write comments on bugs, etc.). For me (and some other developers), the commercial solution was simply WORSE than the free software one. But it wasn't us making the decision of which software to use - it was the managers, and to them the commercial software was more appealing. And if you think that free software is hard to integrate, wait till you here this: while Bugzilla was useful to us out-of-the-box, the commercial product had so many problems that we couldn't use it until one person worked on it for nearly a month (!) tweaking the myriad of scripts, parameters and other crap that came with it. So much for easy integration... And at no point did anyone stop to ask why are we paying thousands of dollars for this crap? -- Nadav Har'El|Tuesday, Nov 18 2003, 23 Heshvan 5764 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone: +972-53-790466, ICQ 13349191 |And now for some feedback: http://nadav.harel.org.il |EEE This electronic message contains information from Verint Systems, which may be privileged and confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by replying to this email. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)
Tal, Shachar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Easily doesn't mean a sysadmin for a day. Easily means not having to invest considerable man-power into making cvs and diff and branches and IDE integration and nightly building and whatnot work together. YMMV for the definition of considerable. Disclaimer: I have not used ClearCase myself. However, I have an impression that, for one reason or other every company that uses Clear Case also has a full time software configuration *team* whose purpose in life is making ClearCase work for the developers. This does not mean that ClearCase is bad, wrong, or anything. This just means that it probably fits someone's definition of considerable man-power. At one company I worked for (about 15 developers) an internal effort was undertaken to write a system for hourly/nightly build of multiple versions of software kept in CVS, at least on two platforms. It took some effort (one person, I don't really remember how much time it took, maybe a week?), but it worked smoothly afterwards. Probably still works, years later - I don't know. Note also that the build system fit the particular development cycle and practices of the outfit - an out-of-the-box solution would not necessarily fit that. Now, consider this. Just a few days ago a friend, who is a configuration manager for a big and well-known unnamed company, complained informally that ClearCase (which has its own filesystem implemented by Rational as a binary only kernel module) does not co-exist well with that company's corporate standard kernel configuration. And they cannot do anything about it until the vendor (IBM in this case) fixes the problem. I surely hope the vendor will provide a solution in time (until the client's standard kernel changes). Again, this is not as much to criticize ClearCase as to point out that this is something a multibillion dollar company would surely deem considerable. -- Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL PROTECTED] = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 18:58, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: Tal, Shachar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Easily doesn't mean a sysadmin for a day. Easily means not having to invest considerable man-power into making cvs and diff and branches and IDE integration and nightly building and whatnot work together. YMMV for the definition of considerable. Disclaimer: I have not used ClearCase myself. However, I have an impression that, for one reason or other every company that uses Clear Case also has a full time software configuration *team* whose purpose in life is making ClearCase work for the developers. This does not mean that ClearCase is bad, wrong, or anything. This just means that it probably fits someone's definition of considerable man-power. You can throw a team on ClearCase maintenance, but without first reading the books they will spend all their time poking around in vein. Most of my time spent on ClearCase involves going through the logs to see one more time that it does what it's supposed to do. Oopss... forgot. I do not do it anymore. I have a script that alerts me if something funny is going on. At one company I worked for (about 15 developers) an internal effort was undertaken to write a system for hourly/nightly build of multiple versions of software kept in CVS, at least on two platforms. It took some effort (one person, I don't really remember how much time it took, maybe a week?), but it worked smoothly afterwards. Probably still works, years later - I don't know. Note also that the build system fit the particular development cycle and practices of the outfit - an out-of-the-box solution would not necessarily fit that. It can be setup in ClearCase in 5 minutes. Create a bunch of dynamic views each with it's own brunch and script the hourly/nightly builds inside each view. Couple of one-liners will suffice. What is the cost of weeks work of a decent sysadmin ? Now, consider this. Just a few days ago a friend, who is a configuration manager for a big and well-known unnamed company, complained informally that ClearCase (which has its own filesystem implemented by Rational as a binary only kernel module) does not co-exist well with that company's corporate standard kernel configuration. And they cannot do anything about it until the vendor (IBM in this case) fixes the problem. I surely hope the vendor will provide a solution in time (until the client's standard kernel changes). Again, this is not as much to criticize ClearCase as to point out that this is something a multibillion dollar company would surely deem considerable. -- = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Version control (was: Re: What's wrong with this code?)
Guy Teverovsky wrote: On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 18:58, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: Tal, Shachar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Easily doesn't mean a sysadmin for a day. Easily means not having to invest considerable man-power into making cvs and diff and branches and IDE integration and nightly building and whatnot work together. YMMV for the definition of considerable. Disclaimer: I have not used ClearCase myself. However, I have an impression that, for one reason or other every company that uses Clear Case also has a full time software configuration *team* whose purpose in life is making ClearCase work for the developers. This does not mean that ClearCase is bad, wrong, or anything. This just means that it probably fits someone's definition of considerable man-power. You can throw a team on ClearCase maintenance, but without first reading the books they will spend all their time poking around in vein. Most of my time spent on ClearCase involves going through the logs to see one more time that it does what it's supposed to do. Oopss... forgot. I do not do it anymore. I have a script that alerts me if something funny is going on. And how much did the time it took you to learn to do that, cost your company? At one company I worked for (about 15 developers) an internal effort was undertaken to write a system for hourly/nightly build of multiple versions of software kept in CVS, at least on two platforms. It took some effort (one person, I don't really remember how much time it took, maybe a week?), but it worked smoothly afterwards. Probably still works, years later - I don't know. Note also that the build system fit the particular development cycle and practices of the outfit - an out-of-the-box solution would not necessarily fit that. It can be setup in ClearCase in 5 minutes. Create a bunch of dynamic views each with it's own brunch and script the hourly/nightly builds inside each view. Couple of one-liners will suffice. What is the cost of weeks work of a decent sysadmin ? I will repeat my last sentence: How much did the time it took you to learn to do that, cost your company? The time it took my sysadmin at previous work to master ClearCase (and teach everybody else the ClearCase Way (tm) to do things) is roughly 2 months her time and ~1 day each person to learn that dreaded UCM. Now, consider this. Just a few days ago a friend, who is a configuration manager for a big and well-known unnamed company, complained informally that ClearCase (which has its own filesystem implemented by Rational as a binary only kernel module) does not co-exist well with that company's corporate standard kernel configuration. And they cannot do anything about it until the vendor (IBM in this case) fixes the problem. I surely hope the vendor will provide a solution in time (until the client's standard kernel changes). Again, this is not as much to criticize ClearCase as to point out that this is something a multibillion dollar company would surely deem considerable. Shachar. = To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
