Boston Linux & Unix (BLU) Home | Calendar | Mail Lists | List Archives | Desktop SIG | Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings
Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU

BLU Discuss list archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

version control


I'm converting from clear case to subversion. I'm not familiar with 
clear case, but it looks like
the source control is done through some kind of file system. (i.e. you 
cd to some directory
and the directory is inside the clear case system. Or something like 
that.) So it looks like in
clear case, you can build your binaries right inside the repository and 
the resulting binaries
are then like committed when they are created? Again, I don't really 
know anything about
clear case. The one thing I do know, is that the end result, they do 
have the binaries committed
in their clear case repository. The question I have is whether I need to 
commit the binaries
to the subversion repository I'm converting over to or not.

Bill Mills-Curran wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 05:12:07PM -0400, Stephen Adler wrote:
>> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:12:07 -0400
>> From: Stephen Adler <adler at>
>> To: Blu <discuss at>
>> Subject: version control
>> Precedence: list
>> Guys,
>> I'm setting up a new repository for a business I'm consulting for. They 
>> are currently a clear case house.
>> One thing which I've noticed is that they store all output file from the 
>> build into their clearcase repository.
>> This goes against my philosophy that the only thing which goes into a 
>> source code repository are the files
>> which are needed to build the executables, and not the executables 
>> themselves. Now I'm having
>> seconds thoughts about my "what gets stored in a source code repository" 
>> philosophy. Can anyone
>> comment on whether its custom to archive the executables as well? One 
>> issue is that I'm working
>> under a quality system so control of files is required. I supposed this 
>> meant control of source files,
>> but perhaps control of derived binaries from the source files is also 
>> required?
>> As usual, all comments are greatly appreciated.
>> Cheers. Steve.
>> -- 
>> This message has been scanned for viruses and
>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>> believed to be clean.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discuss mailing list
>> Discuss at
> I'm a fan of using source control for source.  If you need to archive
> releases (of course you do), then archive them.
> Here's the argument.  Your build system _should_ be able to regenerate
> an old release.  For safety's sake, you should archive it so the bits
> you ship can be recovered.  But, the requirements (and tools) for
> source control are different from those for release archival.
> If your company says that they _really_ need to save the generated
> code in ClearCase, then do it, but put it in a different VOB.  (You
> could even save a snapshot of the source there, too.)
> ClearCase can really get bogged down when the VOBS are filled with
> binaries.  It complicates your backups, too.
> Bill

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities.

Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS!

Boston Linux & Unix /