Comments inline:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Thomson" <danny.thomson@pipinghotnetworks.com>
To: <cciug@rational.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 7:28 AM
Subject: [cciug] Any coment please
>
> Hi All,
>
> The alternative subject could be shoot me down in flames.
>
> I have persuade my company to move from CVS to Clearcase and an currently
> write procedures and getting ready to set-up a system.
>
> I have used Clearcase for a while and done sort-off admin on v3.2.1. we
are
> getting v4.1 and I would be please if anyone would pass options on my
> intentions below. I have been off the mailing list for about a year so
> please forgive me for going over old ground.
>
>
> Not to use an admin VOB and global object.
> My understand with Clearcase V.3.2.1 was that though generally usefully
> there was a number of problems such a removing and renaming global
> objects, have things change with v4.0 and 4.1 ? Should I reconsider this
?
>
Renaming (removing was never a problem that I can remember) global
objects is now possible in ClearCase 4.x. You might want to reconsider
or not...
>
> Place our top level directory structure into several VOBs
> and use symbolic links to make the separate VOB invisible to users.
> I have never been to sure of the ppr's and con's here. Previously I only
had
> one VOB one product and labelled everything.
> My assumptions are that it is easier to move small VOBs around than split
> existing ones, if I have to recover data etc, I only have to affect one
VOB
> and leave the others working. We have very little code at present so it
> could go in one VOB but ...?
Your assumptions are valid I believe. It is much easier, as far as I'm
concerned,
to administer a bunch of smaller (and sorted by functionality) VOBs than to
deal with one large one - as long as you don't end up with too many VOBs.
>
> Brief plan
>
> VOB's project_a project_b
tools
> project_common
> ! !
> ! !
> dir strucure ! !
> ! thirdparty !
> ! !
> ! ! !
> ! !
> ! ! proj_a_pkg
> ! !
> ! ! proj_b_pkg
> !
> ! ! other
> !
> ! !
> !
> !
> !
> !
> !
> ! internal
> !
> !
> project_a dir plus
> sys link to project_common,
> sys link to
tools/thirdparty/proj_a_pkg
> sys link to tools/thirdparty/other
> sys link to tools/internal
>
> To label I would then label project a just follow all the symbolic links.
>
>
Sure.
>
> Not to use UCM
> I have a good well automated process, I and several other people here have
> used in the past, basically all work on branches and branches being equal
to
> a full change set. We are used to the process and feel it is fairly good.
> What I have read of UCM it seems to be a route Clearcase is heading down
> big-time. Is it general feel to be the everything is going ?
>
I think that UCM is definitely where the resources are being placed for
ClearCase.
Having said that, if you already have a process that is comfortable for you,
then
stick with it. Also, there is still quite a bit of work that Rational can
and is doing
the make UCM more useful.
>
> I wanted to do a view per change set auto created and auto-removed when
> merged in.
> I have always had problems stopping user using one view for life, with
huge
> config specs for every occasion. I am going to drop that is a as it has
meet
> with universal unhappiness here.
>
I'll leave this one to others...
>
> Any comments anyone please
>
> Danny Thomon
> PipingHot Networks Ltd
>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 06 2001 - 00:26:52 EDT