Bert & Greg could be right...
If your solution to
branch NT & Unix(environments),
develop solutions their separate branches
merge the wildly different Unix and NT branches after
completion
, watch out!
But, I have seen success when a level of abstraction is added for
the environment resources. i.e. There is a Unix GetTime() and in separate
source code a NT GetTime(). The NT product is built linking the NT GetTime()
and the Unix product is built linking the Unix GetTime(). So now lets
branch...
Develop a common environment interface document, (simple text, so
merge works)
branch NT & Unix(environments),
loop through the following, at regularly prescribed intervals
develop solutions their separate branches
Identify and isolate environment resources, i.e.
unix.cpp and nt.cpp
Propose, document and approve environment interface
(w/other group)
Develop in separate branches
merge common code (non-environment specific code)
Use other groups environment specific code as template as
needed
end loop
There appears to be costs to this process. An interface document is
imperative. Someone has to write it and maintain it. We found the
resulting quality to out way the cost of agreeing on a common environmental
interface.
Sometimes one environment supports separate feature sets.
Unsupported features where stubbed in order to maximize common code.
-----Original Message-----
From: Robbins, Bert [mailto:Bert_Robbins@NAI.com
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 9:27 AM
To: 'Wolfgang Laun'; Greg Dickie
Cc: cciug@Rational.Com
Subject: RE: [cciug] Branch for NT development
WLaun,
I don't believe that Greg is against branching in general, I believe that
his view is that this specific branch is for the wrong reason.
If you desire to have a common set of features across all of your platforms
for each release of a product then NT should be treated like a just another
platform rather than a special platform, otherwise, you will have two
different products.
The real issue here is how the software is engineered rather than platform A
vs. platform B.
Thanks
Bert Robbins
-----Original Message-----
From: Wolfgang Laun [mailto:Wolfgang.Laun@alcatel.at
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 12:21 PM
To: Greg Dickie
Cc: cciug@Rational.Com
Subject: Re: [cciug] Branch for NT development
Greg Dickie wrote:
> My 2 cents. Do not do this. Branching for a platform port is bad and
merging is
> almost impossible. It might be painful but try to stay in the same branch.
Would you please be so kind and explain (briefly) why you advise against
branching? Or do you take this as a port where you burn your bridges, never
to
return?
Thank you,
-WLaun
>
>
> Greg
>
> On 03-Feb-00 John Lawlor wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > We are in the early stages of ClearCase and don't really use branches
until
> > now.
> >
> > One of the development groups wants to create a branch for doing NT
> > development work only and then merge it back in a few weeks (another
story).
> > The development group each use their own views.
> >
> > What is the best way to manage this branch?. All I have come up with so
far
> > is,
> > 1. Declare a branch type 'nt_development'
> > 2. Do a Cleartool mkbranch nt_development.
> >
> > These raise a few questions,
> > Can I branch the whole project or can I only do one file at a time?
> > If I get the developers to setup the views with these rules:
> > element * CHECKEDOUT
> > element * /main/nt_development/LATEST
> > element * /MAIN/1 -mkbranch nt_development
> > that will branch each file version onto this branch, but will I have to
> > merge the files back in 1 by 1?
> >
> > What is the best/smoothest way to get through this?
> >
> > All ideas are very very welcome.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John.
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> >
> >
> > http://clearcase.rational.com/cciug/mailing_list.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Greg Dickie
> Just A Guy*
> *from discreet (the logic is gone)
> Montreal
> (514) 954-7171
> greg@discreet.com
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 06 2001 - 00:22:58 EDT