Danny,
We went against UCM here, because it makes is really easy for the developers to
use, but our setup does not warrant the "out of the box" ClearCase.
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