On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 20:39, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote: > "Tal, Shachar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > From: Shachar Shemesh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Lets separate what the app can do, with the way it is being > > > typically deployed. I am yet to see a deployment of clearcase > > > where developers were given commit access to certain parts of a > > > program, but not to others. You are welcome to contact me off-list.
> You can define code owners for code > > > areas, and enforce that each commit to a given code be approved > > > (or at least acknoledged) by the relevant owner. This can be done > > > in CVS too, however. At work I maintain ClearCase, CVS and Source Safe in the far past. Every developer who starts working with CVS after using ClearCase for a while, complains about the immature approach to code maintenance. Personally I do not write code. I let the developers judge. I admit that I have much to learn about CVS in multi-site environment, but from what I know, it can't have with multi-site support without having a single master repository and yet maintain the ACLs across the sites. > > UNIX permissions would suffice, actually, on a per-module basis. They will. But only in conjunction with security enforcement mechanism. > > > While agreeing with most of your post, I can testify to previously > > working for a company with a state-of-the-art ClearCase > > implementation. Each R&D team has it's own branch to work on, and > > only the integration team merged files from these branches to our > > /main branch. Furthermore, each feature had its own branch, which > > was merged to relevant team branches once matured and tested. > > I may be missing something, but at first glace there is nothing here > that cannot be done with CVS. > > Ouch! What have I done?! I am an IBM employee, and now I am saying > that an amateurish piece of half-baked open source code can do what a > "state of the art" instance of proprietary "software configuration" > tool can do? Wait... I use CVS at work... ;-) <DISCLAIMER> I am not a Rational/IBM employee. I just love the app. </DISCLAIMER> CVS is not: version control mechanism which is content aware and action driven. It lacks inline documentation features and code maintenance (bugs, features) tracking... Have I mentioned the wink-ing ? Suppose you have an app that compiles 5 hours and another developer has already done another build and parts of the objects can be reused. As much as you might not like the product, it saves a hell LOT of time as the version control mechanism will bring you already compiled parts from the network. Now consider an 6-7 hour build on a high-end workstation... Well, I am starting to sound as a sales man, so I will stop here. All that said, I doubt that there are many projects that would justify paying load of greens for this luxury (~ $2-3K for a single floating license). > > > The company I work for currently does not allow engineers access to > > code they have no business reading in the first place. > > They must have a *really* good reason for it. The disadvantages of > this approach are too many to count. The more code your programmers > read the better code they will write. External security restrictions > or "clean room" requirements can justify this, but hardly anything > else. In any case, the above exceptions should be just that - > exceptions. Usually companies write more code for internal consumption > than for customers. No doubt about that. Guy -- ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
