One thing which has been alluded to but not expanded on adequately -
I have been in a couple of organizations that use ClearCase and in
both cases it has been necessary to have a team *dedicated* to
supporting it. It has a definite MIS/central management flavor to it.
It is too complex to effectively distribute control to the teams.
I generally see CVS as something which the development teams using
it can support.
Some things need to be centrally managed - things that nobody sees
except when they aren't done, like backups or maintaining the
corporate email system. Other things need to be centrally managed
because they coordinate the activities of the corporation as a whole.
Customer problem reporting and resolution are arguably in this category
if the corporation is large and geographically diverse. But source
control is something which can be effectively distributed among the
organizations that need it. This is both cheaper and more effective
than centralizing it.
So, in management buzzwords, provided you do sensible things to keep
control of repositories local to the development teams that use them,
my sense is that CVS has better Total Cost of Ownership (TCO).
Of course, CVS has a $300000 head start in TCO over ClearCase right
out of the gate :-).
Ralph A. Mack
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
