Re: Version control
On Mon Mar 12 21:45:34 2001, Jim Gillespie wrote: Does ClearCase work with anything but Solaris? I was talking to my current boss and he reckons it needs a patched kernel in order to do funky stuff with the file system. I've used it on AIX. -- Marty
Re: Version control
From: Greg McCarroll [EMAIL PROTECTED] * David Cantrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: But there are alternatives. Does anyone here have any comments on Perforce or Clearcase? Needless to say, both companies have crap websites with no useful documentation and a tonne of marketing arse. i hated clearcase, but i have a feelign one of our team was using it in a ``creative'' manner, almost all VCS' suck when they are used in any unusual way I know who you're talking about. And I'll bet he just loves Quantum::Superpositions :-) It took me quite a while to get the hang of ClearCase but I was growing to like it by the end of my time at Level3 (time to leave...). Does ClearCase work with anything but Solaris? I was talking to my current boss and he reckons it needs a patched kernel in order to do funky stuff with the file system. My main beef with CVS (and ClearCase) is that there doesn't seem to be any way to access the release string programatically - I can tag all my source as "FOO_R1-0" or whatever, but I can't tell from within the source that it has been so tagged. Unless someone knows different? Jim
Re: Version control
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 09:45:34PM -, Jim Gillespie wrote: My main beef with CVS (and ClearCase) is that there doesn't seem to be any way to access the release string programatically - I can tag all my source as "FOO_R1-0" or whatever, but I can't tell from within the source that it has been so tagged. Unless someone knows different? You can get the _numeric_ version tag with $Version: $ (or whatever it is), in CVS at least, but I assume you already knew that. You can't have the symbolic tag, because it's entirely possible to have more than one symbolic tag applying to the same version of the source code - say, the large static module that's not in a part of the tree that's being worked on very much... Roger
Re: Version control
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 09:45:34PM -, Jim Gillespie wrote: But there are alternatives. Does anyone here have any comments on Perforce or Clearcase? Use Perforce. It's very good. It took me quite a while to get the hang of ClearCase but I was growing to like it by the end of my time at Level3 (time to leave...). Use Perforce. It's very good. Does ClearCase work with anything but Solaris? I was talking to my current boss and he reckons it needs a patched kernel in order to do funky stuff with the file system. Use Perforce. It's very good. My main beef with CVS (and ClearCase) is that there doesn't seem to be any way to access the release string programatically - I can tag all my source as "FOO_R1-0" or whatever, but I can't tell from within the source that it has been so tagged. Unless someone knows different? Use Perforce. It's very good. -- "It's God. No, not Richard Stallman, or Linus Torvalds, but God." (By Matt Welsh)
Re: Version control
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 09:45:34PM -, Jim Gillespie wrote: Does ClearCase work with anything but Solaris? I was talking to my current boss and he reckons it needs a patched kernel in order to do funky stuff with the file system. I know it works with NT (yeah, OK). What's worrying is that I hear that Rational are concentrating development on NT as well, which is obviously a Bad Thing. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Version control
There's been a bit of discussion about version control on the IRC channel. Summary of discussion: CVS and RCS both suck, they just suck in different ways, and subversion is vapourware which doesn't even promise to overcome the problems in CVS/RCS. But there are alternatives. Does anyone here have any comments on Perforce or Clearcase? Needless to say, both companies have crap websites with no useful documentation and a tonne of marketing arse. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/ This is a signature. There are many like it but this one is mine. ** I read encrypted mail first, so encrypt if your message is important ** PGP signature
Re: Version control
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, David Cantrell wrote: There's been a bit of discussion about version control on the IRC channel. Summary of discussion: CVS and RCS both suck, they just suck in different ways, and subversion is vapourware which doesn't even promise to overcome the problems in CVS/RCS. But there are alternatives. Does anyone here have any comments on Perforce or Clearcase? Needless to say, both companies have crap websites with no useful documentation and a tonne of marketing arse. I've used Aegis and CVS in the past and like them both. CVS is used for all the code behind the Human Genome project loads of lines of code and loads of programmers... never seemed to cause a problem there. Andy
Re: Version control
On Mon Mar 12 16:57:09 2001, Leon Brocard wrote: David Cantrell sent the following bits through the ether: But there are alternatives. Does anyone here have any comments on Perforce or Clearcase? Needless to say, both companies have crap websites with no useful documentation and a tonne of marketing arse. I've used Perforce previously, and it's pretty nice, if costly for a commercial project (free for open source, iirc). I've heard good things about Aegis[1] which now has a Perl interface (cue Blackstar folks who use it) but I'm not sure about it - it seems too, um, different. On the whole I think CVS is Good Enough, and I hate RCS. Aegis is more than version control, which is why we used it at BlackStar. We were going to go with CVS at one stage, but we realised that our main problem was not version control, but QA. Aegis enforces a peer-review policy for each project. The process goes something like this: 1. an administrator creates a 'change' on the system: this basically involves describing what needs to be done, and deciding what sort of testing is required for this task. 2. a developer develops a change and writes tests for it, if required. In the default change configuration the tests must pass with the new code and fail with the old code. The developer cannot finish his work until this happens (or the admin changes the test flags on the change). 3. a reviewer now looks at what the developer has changed. If he thinks it is not totally insane, he can pass the change. He usually fails it: goto 2. 4. an integrator now merges the change into the code baseline. Before this can happen, the tests must be run again, passing with the new code and failing with the old. The integrator can fail the change for any other reason as well. The version control part of Aegis can be any system you want, although the default configuration uses tools that the Aegis author has written. If I were to install aegis again, I would try to get it to work with CVS as a backend. I mostly like it. The biggest problem I find is that the Aegis concept of distributed development is not the same as mine. If all the developers have access to the one central machine while they are working, things are fine. If I want to work on my laptop on a plane, things get vary complicated. There is a utility called 'aedist' that is intended to make this distribution work, but it doesn't behave in a way that makes sense to me. -- Marty
