NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/comp/software/3407

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-09 | 11.1 KB

Xref: sparky comp.software-eng:3407 comp.sys.sun.apps:1867 comp.unix.misc:3606 comp.unix.questions:10870 comp.lang.c:13409 comp.lang.misc:2986
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!news.mr.med.ge.com!news
From: [e-mail] (Brett Chapman  x7-4391)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng,comp.sys.sun.apps,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.questions,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc
Subject: SUMMARY:  Need Info/Opinions on Config Mgmt. Software
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:03:37 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: G.E. Medical Systems - Ultrasound
Lines: 276
Nntp-Posting-Host: lightning

FYI,

    Here are the responses I got from my posting asking for information
regarding Software Configuration Management Systems.

    There are a number of packages available:

        Teamware (NSE Replacement)
        Sun Microsystems

        Clearcase
        Atria Software
        214-450-5825

        TeamNet
        TeamOne Systems
        800-442-6650

        CaseWare
        CaseWare, Inc.
        714-453-2200

        CCC/Manager
        Softool Corp.
        805-683-5777

    For our environment, we want the ability to put some methodology
enforcement in place.  Therefore, we are going to continue to look at
CaseWare and Clearcase.  Both seem to be good systems.

    I would like to thank everyone that sent me infomation.

    Below, are the responses I received:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sun has a product called Teamware that does exactly what you are asking for. It will
be available sometime this fall. (I think it is meant as a replacement for NSE.)
As your Sun rep. about it.

Victoria


--
Victoria S. Drozdov       |Salomon:  victoria@hera      |Voice: [phone]
Fulcrum, Salomon Brothers |  Zip:    victoria           |FAX:   [phone]
2 New York Plaza, 18th Fl.|  GEMS:   vdrozdov           |Home:  [phone]
New York, NY  10004       |UUCP:     uunet!sbi!victoria |Internet: [e-mail]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Karl Pingle)

My company also investigated CaseWare.  It looks like a good package if you
want a very rigid methodology imposed on you.  Some places do, we didn't.
We are about to buy TeamNet from TeamOne Systems.  From my evaluation it
looks good, imposes no methodology (although an optional package will be
available later this year to allow customers to develop their own), and
is mostly transparent to your current editors, debuggers, scripts, etc.

They can be reached at 800-442-6650 if you are interested.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been using ClearCase for over six months.  Before that, I used the
CaseWare product for several years.  I'm not an impartial observer since
I was one of the architects of CaseWare/CM and my current employer sells
ClearCase and ClearCase-integrated products.

I feel these are your two best choices.  Both of these products support
advanced configuration management, including features like well-integrated
build tools and rule based configuration.  There are many similarities
between them, but I'll concentrate on the major differences.  CaseWare/CM
probably has the more sophisticated CM functionality.  It provides this,
however, at the cost of a greater commitment on the part of the user.  The
conversion effort for the average UNIX developer is greater than for ClearCase.

ClearCase requires a smaller conversion effort, allowing you to use your
existing directory structure and makefiles for example, and provides its
functionality through more transparent mechanisms.  It does require you to
modify the kernel during installation to acheive this transparency, however.

I have found that just about anything that can be done with one product, can
be done with the other.  Thay are both very flexible and provide hooks for
adding your own customized functions.  Shops with a large amount of existing
code may prefer the ease of migration of ClearCase, while those that can
afford the migration effort or are starting new development may prefer the
greater potential functionality of CaseWare/CM.

I'd be happy to try to answer any specific questions you might have about
these products.

Pete

P.S. Congratulations on dumping NSE!

------
Pete Orelup, Silicon Graphics, Inc. ([e-mail])
[phone], Fax: [phone], MS: 9U-530

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I use SCCS everyday. We are developing a GUI builder. So we all have
to use SCCS. I have installed CVS recently but have not yet made up my
mind to change from sccs to cvs.

thanks

--

B.G. Mahesh
[e-mail]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

Caught your inquiry about CM systems.  You may also wish to look at
Aide-De-Camp, which SMDS markets.  If you send me a phone number or
a mail address I can have the sales critters send you some information.

Richard Harter
--
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: [e-mail] Phone: [phone]
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: [phone]
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brett -

We've had CaseWare/CM (previously called Amplify Control, it is
version 2.1) here at Honeywell since March or April 1991.  As you
probably know, it can be highly modified in regards to the develop
model it implements, security rules associated with the model,
and the availability of writing X-like interfaces to access data.

Two of us spent months defining the model to be implemented (based
on the current Honeywell methods), writing bunches of Accent code
to perform change request processing integrated with the life cycle
of component version (an early, and in some ways more robust, version
of their newly released ProbTrak), and training users how to function
in the environment.

We missed our schedule because much of the code was to
be written by CaseWare people, but early on the four main technical
people at CaseWare left and we were forced to do it all ourselves.

Prior to our small project (approximately 15 users), and even now,
most of our division uses CM on the VAX (utilizing CMS and RDB).  Our
tools group(s) is(are) spending lots of time integrating the SUNs
and VAXs together (why!!!!) to utilize our current CM abilities.

None of the SUN CM products were proven when we first started looking.
We additionally looked at CCC and Atherton.

Our use of Amplify was to configure C, C++, awk, and TeleUse source
files.  The build graph features Amplify has are great for any one
of these sources to compiled, linked, etc. into a product.  Our
problem was that actually we had about 12 different types of files
which went into the building of a product.  And some of those files
represented a model dictating how the build was accomplished; the
result was that (in our case, and I think it's a strange one) when
some of our files changed, the build graph would have to be changed
(by hand) so it didn't work very well.  We ended up using Amplify as
a CM repository and a change tracking system, but did our builds
outside of Amplify.

The other things we CM'd in Amplify were FrameMaker documents; it
has a pretty nice integration with FrameMaker.  The BIG problem
with 2.1 was that you couldn't generate/update a FrameMaker book
out of Amplify.  So, just like the source code scenario, we ended up
using Amplify as a CM repository and a change tracking system, but did
our book generations outside of Amplify.

Amplify 2.1 was filled with "known bugs" and some database problems.

During late 1991 CaseWare was a pretty messed up company due to the
people that had left.  Apparently they're back on their feet now and
really pushing quality.

Since the project which was really using Amplify the most has sort
of changed direction, we no longer use it that much.  (A few people
per week, perhaps.)  I therefore have not yet installed CaseWare/CM 3.0.
However, I've worked with the beta release versions a fair amount, and
the FrameMaker stuff seems improved, as well as the database
performance, reliability, and tools to support the database.

Early 1992 I went to a half day demonstration of Atria's ClearCase.  The
problem for me back then was that it wasn't due for release until May
or June, so I mainly went just to keep up on what was "out there."
I liked the fact that (supposedly) users could stay in a UNIX
environment and ClearCase would sort of be a front end into the UNIX
file system.  Also, with ClearCase, I don't know how easy it would be
to change to implement a change request system like we required.


Hope this rambling helps you a little.  I'll be curious to see other
input you get.


Bill May

Aircraft Diagnostics and Monitoring Systems

Honeywell, Inc.
Commercial Flight Systems Group
P.O. Box 21111
Phoenix, AZ  85036

[phone]
[phone]  (FAX)

[e-mail]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

I saw your above posting re' CM software.  There is another company
called TeamOne Systems in Sunnyvale, CA, that is marketing its
CM tool called TeamNet.  You might be interested in looking at
their tools, also. e-mail me if you would like to have more
information.

satya podury

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brett,

I have limited knowledge of people using Intersolv's PVCS DOS utilities,
VMS's CMS/MMS and UNIX SCCS and RCS (with someone recommending CVS as a
utility that is used on top of RCS).  PVCS appeals to me because of the
fact that they have DOS, VMS, OS/2 and UNIX versions.

All packages seem to have been spawned from the SCCS & MAKE utilities that
are shipped with all unix-based operating systems.  But I think SCCS falls
way short of being a functional tool for system-level configuration
management.  The biggest drawback being the inability to relate versions of
files to a release of the system.

I had played with CCC from Softool on VMS in 1988.  At the time I found it
to be quite a resource hog.  It may have been the system that I was working
on or it may have been the package, I just don't know.  Their documented
approach to SWCM throughout the life cycle is very appealing though.  I
haven't heard anything about their porting of the product to unix systems
(which I would expect to be faster than VMS anyway).  Depending on the size
of development groups and software projects their approach may be more
structured than you'd be able to sell to the engineers.

I don't check this newsgroup too often, so I'd appreciate if you could
e-mail the summary that you put together -- I'm also defining requirements
for our company right now.

Al Hollander

Simpact Associates
9210 Sky Park Ct
San Diego CA 92123
[phone]  x1256
[phone]  FAX

------------------------------------END----------------------------------------


  GG    EEEEEE    M    M      SS
 G  G    EE    MM  MM    S    S        Brett Chapman
G    EE    M MM M     S        G.E. Medical Systems
G  GGG    EEEEEE    M    M       S        Ultrasound Systems Administrator
G    G    EE    M    M        S        [e-mail]
 G  G    EE    M    M    S    S        sun.com!sunbrew!gemed!chapmanB
  GG    EEEEEE    M    M      SS
--
 -