Hi Danny,
I have one piece of information. If you are using SGI UNIX the 4.1 version of
ClearCase will not support it just yet.
Rita
Danny Thomson wrote:
> 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 ?
>
> 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 ...?
>
> 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.
>
> 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 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.
>
> Any comments anyone please
>
> Danny Thomon
> PipingHot Networks Ltd
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 06 2001 - 00:26:52 EDT