Andrew Close wrote:
> On 5/9/07, david x callaway <dxc@pobox.com> wrote:
>> if you look at "all the possible solutions available", you will never
>> choose because there are at least dozens and maybe more. my advice is
>> to evaluate systems until you find at most 3 that meet your known needs
>> (including future), then stop looking and pick one. unless you are
>> really, really special I don't think it would be difficult to come up
>> with three good candidates.
>>
>> I'll even seed the flamewar: look at git, svn and perforce. like
>> gigantic systems that require multiple adminstrators? substitute
>> clearcase for one of the above. don't care about atomic commits and
>> speed of remote diffing? substitute cvs for one of the above.
>
> i'd be quite happy with SVN, and i think we could build a successful
> process around it. unfortunately it looks like management wants
> process in a box, which is particularly frustrating because then the
> developers have very little say in the process. we (the developers)
> know the current process is broken and would really like to be
> involved in fixing it. but we don't currently have an argument that
> will persuade management...
Does management realize that ClearCase will in all likelihood require at
least one *full time* admin for it alone? If nothing else, you can try
the cost angle.
The time you spend developing a process around CC will be no less than
developing one around SVN. There is no such thing as "process in a box".
toby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 10 18:09:50 2007