[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: Re: Comparison with Clearcase Lite

From: Reedick, Andrew <Andrew.Reedick_at_BellSouth.com>
Date: 2006-10-06 16:36:49 CEST

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert P. J. Day [mailto:rpjday@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 5:08 AM
> To: Steve.Nelson@uk.delarue.com
> Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: Comparison with Clearcase Lite
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2006, Steve.Nelson@uk.delarue.com wrote:
> > ... so I really can't see what is driving the suggestion not to use
> > SVN, unless it is mistrust of OSS.
> because, as we all know, expensive, proprietary, closed-source,
> black-box software that handcuffs you into vendor "lock-in" for which
> those vendors are rarely accountable is clearly a superior business
> decision in the long run.
> </sarcasm>

        ClearCase has merge tracking. And true renames. And dynamic
views (well not CC Lite.) And build and audit tools (well not CC Lite.)
And prettier merge tools. And directories are first class objects. And
has functional symlinks that work on Unix and Windows. And lazy
branching. CC has client side triggers, which allows for greater
customization/control on a coporate LAN. CC also comes with an out of
the box process (UCM.)

        OTOH, Svn working copies are much, much better than CC snapshot
views. Svn is much cheaper in terms of $$. Svn's labeling is several
orders of magnitudes faster than CC. CC is fatally allergic to latency,
so WANs and world-wide use isn't practical unless you pay big bucks for
Multi-Site. CC doesn't have atomic commits. Svn requires less

        SVN automatically handles Evil Twins, whereas an Evil Twin
prevention trigger in CC is a good idea. Which isn't to imply that
automatically resolving Evil Twins is a good thing all the time. More
of a tradeoff/design decision.

        ClearCase is also integrated with ClearQuest (change management
tool) which may or may not be a good thing depending on your definition
of 'integration', and your views on 'vendor-lock-in' versus

        SVN is still young. Until 1.4.0 finally came out, I dreaded
merges because of the 'delete + add' breaks commits bug. And we all
remember the joy of wedged databases. SVN is getting better, but it's
not the best (merge tracking, merge tracking, merge tracking...)

P.S. Spouting generic anti-corporation cliches isn't considered
sarcasm. Please search on 'underpants gnomes'.

P.P.S The original poster should try the clearcase forum on
www.cmcrossroads.com or try the cciug mailing (clearcase international
users group) Try cciug@lists.ca.ibm.com or hit IBM-Rational's website to
join. My CC experience stops at CC 6.0, and CC 7.0 has come out
somewhat recently.


The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA623

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 6 16:37:57 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.