"Mark Eliason" <meliason@tickets.com> wrote:
>
> I'm figuring this has been discussed before on cciug but I can't find much
> in the archives....does anyone have a usage model for a label based
> system in ClearCase vs. a branch based system? The scenario is this:
> a development group wants to minimize the "complexity" in managing
> code control by working with as few branches and merges and possible.
> Actually, the developers want to work right on main. This is a new project
>
> where the code hasn't been written yet, its basically rapid development
> (write now test later), the chances for parallel development are estimated
> to be low.
>
> I've tried to push for some branching but the lead developer is pretty
> persistent about this no branches thing. Which, I believe is doable as
> long as the necessary pieces are in place. Proper label, attribute, and
> baseline management, etc. My question -- what are all those pieces?
> Is there such a thing as the "proper" way to manage this? I've never
> worked
> in a more or less branchless environment.
>
> One assumption I have is that since main in this model would actually be
> development code I'm assuming that a release branch should be used to
> represent the blessed code....which could actually be accomplished
> by locking a baseline release label on the main branch too I suppose.
> Developers won't care so much about the release branch, they won't have
> to do anything gwith it anyway....
The trick to avoiding branches is to divorce the LATEST version from
the one that's eligible for inclusion in some build envrironment. That
environment could be a contributor's view or a nightly/weekly build or
whatever.
There are several ways to accomplish this. For development environments,
the engineers may like to choose versions existing at a specific time
plus their own checkins and checkouts. For builders, floating labels
or attributes could be used, or even hyperlinks that gather up versions
in some form of change control and handoff mechanism.
-- The CEO of my employer requires me to include the following notice in my signature:* This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately. --- Paul M. Sander +1 650 261 5174 | To the medieval era's literate few..., the BroadVision, Inc. | turn of the millenium held a particular alure. 585 Broadway | After all, with the stroke of a quill, the Redwood City, CA 94063 USA | world went from DCCCCLXXXXVIIIJ to...M. | -- Rachel Emma Silverman, Wall St. Journal - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 06 2001 - 00:23:08 EDT