From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3c8a1ddc13ecb354 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "James A. Squire" Subject: Re: Configuration Management for Ada on Unix Date: 1996/05/31 Message-ID: <31AF7F12.6DE9@csehp3.mdc.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 157813211 sender: Ada programming language references: <9605301407.AA03821@most> comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: MDA Avionics Tools & Processes mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; HP-UX A.09.01 9000/715) Date: 1996-05-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Samuel Tardieu wrote: > >>>>> "James" == James A Squire 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 . 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 version I just checked in in 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!"