[UFO Chicago] OT: Rational Clear Case?

[Nick Moffitt]

begin  Brian Sobolak  quotation:
> Nick Moffitt said:
> > begin  Brian Sobolak  quotation:
> >> (Nevermind the open source products.  I fought that battle and
> >> lost already.  No one seems to have heard of CVS or Subversion,
> >> sadly.)
> >
> > 	Both are already yesterday's news.  If it's proprietary you're
> > 	after, why not look at bitkeeper?
> 
> If I were able to make a suggestion, I would probably at least head
> in that direction.  Unfortunately I am being handed a directive from
> our IS department and the existing solution:  either continue using
> VSS (at 10GB and growing), or take the hit of migrating and go to
> ClearCase.  Other tools aren't on the table, because they are
> 'unsupported'.

	But bitkeeper is a proprietary product from a company that
provides commercial support.  Jesux I can't believe I'm advocating
this here, but McVoy's steaming turd is ambrosia compared to the
600-lb kludge that is ClearCase.

> Most of the proprietary SCM tools only deal with multi-office
> development in a kludgy fashion.  CVS, with all of its warts, would
> meet our needs for sharing code between Chicago and India at a
> fraction of the cost of ClearCase.  Moving towards something with
> more bells and whistles would be even better.  But as is too often
> the case with corporate IT, someone made the decision, and I just
> get to implement it.

	Bitkeeper (and the Free SOftware contemporaries such as arch
and darcs) handles off-site repositories smoothly.  All of these
systems *began* with the features for how to handle multiple
repositories, and worked from there.

	If you actually had no say in the matter *whatsoever*,
including the suggestion of other hideous proprietary codebases and
business contracts, then why the hell did you post *anything* to a
Free Software list?

-- 
"I think that software engineering would help to prevent      Nick Moffitt
things like imake."                                          nick at zork.net
   -- Jon Webb