Re: ClearCase (was: MacOS/Samba not playing nice)
I haven't worked with ClearCase in quite a while but have done so at several different companies. Every source control system and build/configuration manager has its problems and I certainly had occasion to curse ClearCase from time to time, but in its (mild) defense I'll mention some things I recall admiring about it: - I liked the way your (view of your) repository appeared as just a plain old filesystem hierarchy so you could operate on the files/ dirs therein with all the standard tools. We even kept the tool chains in ClearCase so we'd be sure to have all the correct compilers and stuff for recreating ancient builds. - I liked (what we used to call) The Wayback Machine aspect where you could easily fall back to whatever versions were current at any particular time - useful for quickly finding when something got b0rken. - I liked the ClearCase-aware make that could determine if (as was often the case) a given target already existed in somebody else's view and, if so, perform a wink-in instead of having to build it locally. On the other hand, anything but the most trivial deployment (in which case, why bother with CC?) requires a dedicated, savvy admin. Distributed development was difficult. And IIRC the customer service from Rational wasn't great... ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ClearCase (was: MacOS/Samba not playing nice)
Tom Buskey t...@buskey.name writes: We use ClearCase here and[...] Sorry to hear that. I have some experience both working around ClearCase and migrating off of it, if you are (or anyone else is) interested. -- 'tis an ill wind that blows no minds. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ClearCase (was: MacOS/Samba not playing nice)
Our developers want to switch, management doesn't :-/ so we'll probably have it around forever. I generally don't like it because it's a kernel mod and generates a high I/O load. What do people switch to? ClearCase provides a central repository and there's some protection against shooting yourself in the foot. Plus there's integration with ClearQuest. We are not able to get training in developer tools and our users do not check in (1-3 years) often. I think something designed for multiple repositories and lots of checkins (GIT) wouldn't be a good fit, but I'm not a developer ;-) On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen roz...@geekspace.comwrote: Tom Buskey t...@buskey.name writes: We use ClearCase here and[...] Sorry to hear that. I have some experience both working around ClearCase and migrating off of it, if you are (or anyone else is) interested. -- 'tis an ill wind that blows no minds. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: ClearCase (was: MacOS/Samba not playing nice)
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Tom Buskey t...@buskey.name wrote: Our developers want to switch, management doesn't :-/ so we'll probably have it around forever. I generally don't like it because it's a kernel mod and generates a high I/O load. What do people switch to? You can configure and setup workflows where a distributed Version Control System (VCS) is centralized, but you can't configure a centralized VCS to be distributed. And besides the development workflow, git has other desirable features (http://git-scm.com/about/) so people are switching to git. ClearCase provides a central repository and there's some protection against shooting yourself in the foot. Plus there's integration with ClearQuest. We are not able to get training in developer tools and our users do not check in (1-3 years) often. I think something designed for multiple repositories and lots of checkins (GIT) wouldn't be a good fit, but I'm not a developer ;-) If people don't checkin for so long, then they effectively are on an island. In which case a distributed VCS like git seems to make more sense than a centralized one. It should be stated that you can setup multiple repositories per server in a centralized system, but you can also setup multiple projects per repository when those projects are in any way related. Regardless of the workflow, I've found that merging with git is 1000x better than with svn (and that's with svn having what they call merge tracking). ClearCase is one of the few VCSes that I'm not familiar with but I can say git is simply more powerful than svn. Because of that there is more to learn if you want to use those powers. However, the basic workflow can be mastered pretty easily. Gitosis ( http://scie.nti.st/2007/11/14/hosting-git-repositories-the-easy-and-secure-way/) is a simple yet very effective method for setting up your own Git server to manage repositories for people. Git can keep track of your own stuff and you don't need to setup a server at all. Speaking of servers, etckeeper ( http://www.serverwatch.com/server-tutorials/keep-configs-under-control-with-etckeeper.html) is a simple yet effective method for tracking system configuration with git/bazaar/mercurial. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
