Re: Configuration Management for Ada on Unix

["James A. Squire" <m193884@CSEHP3.MDC.COM>]

Samuel Tardieu wrote:

> >>>>> "James" == James A Squire <m193884@CSEHP3.MDC.COM> writes:
>
> James> This thread, more often than not, seems to have nothing to do
> James> with Ada. I believe there is a newsgroup for config-mgmt
> James> (something like comp.software.config-mgmt, I think).

Now that I think about it, the above was a dumb suggestion, because ...
[see my next statement below]

> It depends: since many Ada95 compilers have adopted a source-based
> system, most CM tools are now available for use with Ada. It may be of

I see now the connection you were making.  I stand corrected (about this
thread being off-topic, that is).

As I also indicated in my other message, I don't think SCCS and RCS (nor
CVS having looked at it) qualify as CM tools.  They are version control
tools.  In fact CVS does not call itself CM but rather "source control".
In my neck of the woods, such tools do nothing to help an organization
achieve SEI level 2, much less 3.  That's just an example - I understand
that not everyone is bound by SEI.  But configuration management tools
provide baseline capabilities, for one thing.  With SCCS or RCS, in
order to effectively manage baselines, you have to add some kind of
extra intelligence to the tool (be it a wrapper, whatever).  Or you have
to set some hokey convention about the proper use of major and minor
version numbers on individual files.  I seem to recall using SCCS once
and there was some kind of convention built into the tool such that an
individual version was <rel>.<delta> or something like that, and if you
called your baseline "release 2", you could use a -r 2, but while that
would be certain to pick up the latest version for those files that were
still at 1.x, additional gymnastics were needed to exclude developmental
versions of the form 2.x from being included.

My point is that there was no explicit mechanism for saying, "stick
<this> version I just checked in in <that> baseline."

In the CM tool that I use, I can ask the tool directly to do just that.
That, just to give one example, is the difference between a CM tool and
what you guys have been talking about.

> these tools without having to read a new group. In particular, GNAT
> users may want to know that free [version control] tools exist, so that a

On the other hand, CM tools do cost big bucks, so I understand your
point.

I just wanted to tweak everybody on their sloppy terminology.  I'll go
away now ;-)
--
James Squire
MDA Avionics Tools & Processes
ja_squire@csehp3.mdc.com
Opinions expressed here are my own and NOT my company's
"one of these days I'm going to better myself by going to Knight school"
"You'll be a web knight instead of a web page!"