Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!xlned.com!feeder5.xlned.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.092 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.82; '*S*': 0.00; 'static': 0.04; 'admins': 0.09; 'cvs': 0.09; 'mercurial': 0.09; 'mess': 0.09; 'option,': 0.09; 'seemed': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.11; 'systems.': 0.12; 'big,': 0.16; 'enough.': 0.16; 'rcs': 0.16; 'roy': 0.16; 'stupid,': 0.16; 'timestamp': 0.16; 'unbelievably': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'users.': 0.18; 'all,': 0.19; 'cheap': 0.19; 'possible,': 0.19; 'slightly': 0.19; '>>>': 0.22; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; 'parse': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'sort': 0.25; 'developers': 0.25; 'extension': 0.26; 'full-time': 0.26; 'specially': 0.26; 'task': 0.26; 'least': 0.26; 'header:In- Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'rest': 0.29; 'am,': 0.29; 'points': 0.29; 'tim': 0.29; 'moved': 0.30; 'said,': 0.30; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; 'convince': 0.31; 'developers.': 0.31; 'really,': 0.31; 'though.': 0.31; 'handled': 0.32; 'stuff': 0.32; 'themselves': 0.32; 'regular': 0.32; 'worked': 0.33; 'could': 0.34; "can't": 0.35; 'connection': 0.35; 'done.': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'ibm': 0.36; 'words,': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'being': 0.38; 'remote': 0.38; 'needed': 0.38; 'files': 0.38; "couldn't": 0.39; 'embedded': 0.39; 'changed': 0.39; 'major': 0.40; 'how': 0.40; 'even': 0.60; 'company': 0.60; 'dave': 0.60; 'ago,': 0.61; 'lost': 0.61; 'course': 0.61; 'companies': 0.62; 'back': 0.62; 'complete': 0.62; 'real': 0.63; 'confirm': 0.64; 'situation': 0.65; 'hours': 0.66; 'smith': 0.68; 'home': 0.69; 'commercial': 0.71; 'connection.': 0.74; 'saw': 0.77; 'compiles': 0.84; 'golf': 0.84; 'plays': 0.84; 'results,': 0.84; 'seat.': 0.84; 'subject:Control': 0.84; 'absolutely': 0.87; 'angel': 0.91; 'careful': 0.91; 'edwards': 0.91; 'trained': 0.95; 'dollars': 0.97; '2013': 0.98 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=CbiKqvtgMDdueL2vKPp+W0NWoeiDbWsDsQ2lLo1fUV4=; b=tSOIEqy0xcBydSdgVVTssitva1TCDZwrw+q2cKy4bLOG/Zx99RsgL/aQcwR2JiHkSy 7M15MRx5iMy6Ph4uPxWydiRBIUhZBQ66QMtoRGjTbq6WrOVED+hXcYlbMGCVWZsv0kC3 xc6wA0HUYOEiiXNnZwzGBVztF0CHZ8+fTr6VZF+jM8BHyr8IgjZATqwkdN6OL2YZYwyp z3IRy8/bsaN5Q2xIpYr15gqWjS+6huVT6A9NML2AyRtuys0GLcJ+8mLpZu7UF9id7b2y jbx7kvPpHVblg+riQdUe02sf4oUdhgX5DNvDhXiQJkULZoRLyHYxG/5qea7hINJlR5Zp zNzA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.144.163 with SMTP id sn3mr3566097oeb.112.1371274789144; Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:39:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <51BB8338.50006@davea.name> References: <98c13a55-dbf2-46a7-a2aa-8c5f052ff375@googlegroups.com> <2644d0de-9a81-41aa-b27a-cb4535964b58@googlegroups.com> <51BB8338.50006@davea.name> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:39:48 +1000 Subject: Re: Version Control Software From: Tim Delaney To: Dave Angel Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b339f39b24e6a04df2aca46 Cc: Python-List X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 126 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1371274798 news.xs4all.nl 15899 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:57741 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:48251 --047d7b339f39b24e6a04df2aca46 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 15 June 2013 06:55, Dave Angel wrote: > On 06/14/2013 10:24 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: > >> On 2013-06-14, Roy Smith wrote: >> >> All that being said, it is, as Anssi points out, a horrible, bloated, >>> overpriced, complicated mess which requires teams of specially >>> trained ClearCase admins to run. In other words, it's exactly the >>> sort of thing big, stupid, Fortune-500 companies buy because the IBM >>> salesperson plays golf with the CIO. >>> >> >> Years ago, I worked at one largish company where a couple of the >> embedded development projects used ClearCase. The rest of us used CVS >> or RCS or some other cheap commercial systems. Judging by those >> results, ClearCase requires a full-time administrator for every 10 or >> so users. The other systems seemed to require almost no regular >> administration, and what was required was handled by the developers >> themselves (mayby a couple hours per month). The cost of ClearCase >> was also sky-high. >> >> > if I remember rightly, it was about two-thousand dollars per seat. And > the people I saw using it were using XCOPY to copy the stuff they needed > onto their local drives, then disabling the ClearCase service so they could > get some real work done. Compiles were about 10x slower with the service > active. > I can absolutely confirm how much ClearCase slows things down. I completely refused to use dynamic views for several reasons - #1 being that if you lost your network connection you couldn't work at all, and #2 being how slow they were. Static views were slightly better as you could at least hijack files in that situation and keep working (and then be very very careful when you were back online). And then of course there was ClearCase Remote Client. I was working from home much of the time, so I got to use CCRC. It worked kinda well enough, and in that situation was much better than the native client. Don't ever ever try to use ClearCase native over a non-LAN connection. I can't stress this enough. The ClearCase protocol is unbelievably noisy, even if using static views. CCRC did have one major advantage over the native client though. I had the fun task when I moved my local team from CC to Mercurial of keeping the Mercurial and CC clients in sync. Turns out that CCRC was the best option, as I was able to parse its local state files and work out what timestamp ClearCase thought its files should be, set it appropriately from a Mercurial extension and convince CCRC that really, only these files have changed, not the thousand or so that just had their timestamp changed ... CCRC at least made that possible, even if it was a complete accident by the CCRC developers. Tim Delaney --047d7b339f39b24e6a04df2aca46 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 15 June 2013 06:55, Dave Angel <davea@davea.name>= ; wrote:
On 06/14/2013 10:24 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2013-06-14, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:

All that being said, it is, as Anssi points out, a horrible, bloated,
overpriced, complicated mess which requires teams of specially
trained ClearCase admins to run. =C2=A0In other words, it's exactly the=
sort of thing big, stupid, Fortune-500 companies buy because the IBM
salesperson plays golf with the CIO.

Years ago, I worked at one largish company where a couple of the
embedded development projects used ClearCase. =C2=A0The rest of us used CVS=
or RCS or some other cheap commercial systems. =C2=A0Judging by those
results, ClearCase requires a full-time administrator for every 10 or
so users. =C2=A0The other systems seemed to require almost no regular
administration, and what was required was handled by the developers
themselves (mayby a couple hours per month). =C2=A0The cost of ClearCase was also sky-high.


if I remember rightly, it was about two-thousand dollars per seat. =C2=A0An= d the people I saw using it were using XCOPY to copy the stuff they needed = onto their local drives, then disabling the ClearCase service so they could= get some real work done. =C2=A0Compiles were about 10x slower with the ser= vice active.

I can absolutely confirm how much ClearCas= e slows things down. I completely refused to use dynamic views for several = reasons - #1 being that if you lost your network connection you couldn'= t work at all, and #2 being how slow they were. Static views were slightly = better as you could at least hijack files in that situation and keep workin= g (and then be very very careful when you were back online).

And then of course there was ClearCase Remote Client. I= was working from home much of the time, so I got to use CCRC. It worked ki= nda well enough, and in that situation was much better than the native clie= nt. Don't ever ever try to use ClearCase native over a non-LAN connecti= on. I can't stress this enough. The ClearCase protocol is unbelievably = noisy, even if using static views.

CCRC did have one major advantage over the native clien= t though. I had the fun task when I moved my local team from CC to Mercuria= l of keeping the Mercurial and CC clients in sync. Turns out that CCRC was = the best option, as I was able to parse its local state files and work out = what timestamp ClearCase thought its files should be, set it appropriately = from a Mercurial extension and convince CCRC that really, only these files = have changed, not the thousand or so that just had their timestamp changed = ... CCRC at least made that possible, even if it was a complete accident by= the CCRC developers.

Tim Delaney
--047d7b339f39b24e6a04df2aca46--