One issue comes to mind are the actual user manuals, guides, test procedures
etc,,, that are required for and/or part of the end product. As part of the
activities of approving changes to code all the relevant docs also need to
be updated and reviewed/approved to ensure they match and support the unit
or integration tests or final release. These updates to docs form part of
the tasks required using UCM or not.
Using UCM in this light makes for a cleaner process in my mind. Having one
central source to address all the required work and traceability of changes.
Any comments anyone?
Norm
-----Original Message-----
From: Gande Thirupathaiah
[mailto:gthirupa@harmonicinc.com
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 1:38 PM
To: Yamuna Ramasubramaniyan
Cc: 'Couball, James'; 'cciug@rational.com'
Subject: Re: [cciug] UCM: good for some artifacts,
bad for others?
Hi,
Why do not we put all the documents (like design docs etc)
in a NON UCM
vob?
Can any body tell me on what do we gain by putting these
in UCM VObs?
Thanks
gande
Yamuna Ramasubramaniyan wrote:
>
> James,
>
> You have it right in that any change a person makes needs
to be delivered
> and baselined before it can be accessed by anyone else.
It is painful in
> the initial development stage of the project. It is not
particularly
> mistake prone (if you can't see the doc in your view, you
just can't see the
> doc), but it does cause a lot of heartburn ("But I just
need to see it, why
> do I have to do all this stuff" will become a very
familiar phrase). You
> might want to consider having everyone use one development
stream during
> this initial phase only. That way project members can
read the docs, edit
> them etc. in real time and deliver and baseline it when it
undergoes a peer
> review periodically.
>
> -Cheers,
> Yamuna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Couball, James
[mailto:James.Couball@cotelligent.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2000 8:41 AM
> To: 'cciug@rational.com'
> Subject: [cciug] UCM: good for some artifacts, bad for
others?
>
> Hello,
>
> I am using ClearCase UCM (w/o ClearQuest integration at
the moment) in an
> environment where we previously used SourceSafe. I am
running up against a
> usability issue I was hoping that someone could help me
with.
>
> It is early in the project and there are a lot of
documents being shared by
> the develolpment team. They used to use SourceSafe to
share the documents.
> This was easy for them: just check it in and the next
person can get it.
> Now that we have moved to ClearCase using UCM, one person
must deliver their
> changes, someone must baseline the delivered changes, and
then the
> interested parties must rebase their development stream.
It strikes me that
> I am not using UCM or ClearCase correctly if it is so hard
to do this.
> People will make mistakes.
>
> I think that this is particularly the case for management
documents. For
> instance, you don't usually go through a change management
process for
> changes made to the project plan -- right?
>
> How do others use ClearCase UCM for managing these types
of documents in a
> way that makes it easy for people make small changes and
share the results
> with others? Maybe these type of documents shouldn't be
stored using UCM?
>
> Sincerely,
> James.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
>
> can
also unsubscribe
> customers-only
website
>
http://clearcase.rational.com/cciug/mailing_list.html
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
>
> can
also unsubscribe
> customers-only
website
>
http://clearcase.rational.com/cciug/mailing_list.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -
with
body
can also
unsubscribe
customers-only
website
http://clearcase.rational.com/cciug/mailing_list.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 06 2001 - 00:26:56 EDT