Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!motcsd!hpda!hpcupt1!hpirs!runyan
From: runyan@hpirs.HP.COM (Mark Runyan)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Re: Source Code Control
Message-ID: <9630002@hpirs.HP.COM>
Date: 25 Jun 89 21:57:59 GMT
References: <133@tirnan.UUCP>
Organization: HP GSY/USO/UKL Cupertino, CA, USA
Lines: 30

>/ steinar@fdmetd.uucp (Steinar Overbeck Cook) / 11:33 pm  Jun 20, 1989 /
>(Larry Campbell) writes:
>>(Mark Runyan) writes:
>>> -This requires changing the work habits of several engineers, some of which
>>> -may still not understand the need for SCM.
>> If they don't understand the need for SCM, then they're not engineers,
>> they're programmers, and pretty feeble ones at that.
>I could not agree more with that last statement :-). 

Of course, I, too, would tend to agree, but then, I am the person responsible
for SCM here.

It appears that everyone in this discussion believes that SCM is a good idea,
but remember that there are various levels.  While I believe that being
able to tie all the source, documentation, etc together for a given product
is a great idea, I may tend to balk at the need for a configuration control
board, especially on a "small" to "medium" sized project.

Anyway, there *are* various degrees and levels of software configuration, and
several of those who have posted appear to be interested in tools and/or
procedures that have made life easier for others.  If you can start fresh,
perhaps DSEE from Apollo or NSE from Sun would be a good idea (assuming you
can afford their equipment).  

However, some of us can't just start over, we have to use the existing
equipment and systems and try to find a solution that works.  Whatever that
solution is, it *has* to be simple to use and train people in.  Getting
engineers to switch work habits is difficult.

Mark Runyan