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: Bob Crispen <revbob@EIGHT-BALL.HV.BOEING.COM>
Subject: Re: Configuration Management for Ada on Unix
Date: 1996/05/30
Message-ID: <9605301236.AA17533@eight-ball>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 157551640
sender: Ada programming language <INFO-ADA@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU>
comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-05-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Sorry, I didn't mean to start an SCCS-vs-RCS war (which is surely a
little off topic?)

I merely meant to indicate that a delta engine, WHATEVER it is, is
a significant part of a configuration management system, but by no
means the whole system; and that I have seen systems that range in
complexity from shell script front ends to the delta engine up
through extremely complex database systems with roles and the
capability of generating single lines of code on the fly, and the
whole nine yards; and that the choice of which system to use is
greatly dependent on your requirements.

Duh!  Maybe three duh!s.  But if you think you can shortcut the
engineering process of requirements analysis, trade studies, etc., etc.
for the configuration management requirements of your program and
get off easy by saying "everybody uses XYZ" -- well, tough luck.

Hey!  We may have discovered the last domain for which the waterfall
model applies -- CM.  Or has someone used a spiral model for CM
(intentionally ;-)?

Bob Crispen
revbob@eight-ball.hv.boeing.com
Speaking for myself, not my company