Talk:IBM DevOps Code ClearCase

message: How can I know the all the files checked in by an induvidial?
: If you're looking for the specific ClearCase command, it is:  cleartool find -avobs -version "created_by(username)" -print  (read the find and query_language manuals for details) Trent 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can I know the all the files checked in by an induvidial 

message: At some point, I would like someone to explain to me
exactly how ClearCase integrates well with Rational Rose, ClearQuest
and other IBM/Rational tools.
In my experience, those other tools resist any kind of serious revision control.
Jgrahn 19:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Integration 

message: Rather than a "criticism" section (ClearCase is not a person, as much as
I'd like to anthopomorphize it), I think we should definitely add a pros/cons
section that references the SCM tools comparison.
--Afc 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone new to ClearCase and the article, I have to say the article reads more like a "ClearCase is SCM and this is what makes it unique".  I do believe this is article is more NPOV than positive-POV, and it helped me understand why my company has decided to use it.  However, before I erected a ClearCase service I'd prefer someone make a Criticisms section (even though CC is too expensive for me to buy just because of a Wikipedia article). --Caidence 15:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I added links to "List of revision control software" and "Comparison of revision control software".--Btwied 17:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: A criticism section would be great, I also have heard many criticisms of ClearCase. There must be some published articles out there that could be referenced. --JRavn 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I should clarify that the criticisms I have heard are with the UCM and the Windows GUI parts rather than basic ClearCase Alf Boggis 14:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I could certainly write up a criticisms section, as I have been working with ClearCase (as an admin) since 1994 and am very familiar with its flaws (and advantages, of course).  But wouldn't that count as original research?  Maybe I'll finish up the critique page on my own website first.  Trent 15:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Funny how the criticism section disappeared recently (considering it was pretty mild) Tabgal 00:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contributions show only the one change by the IP that did the edit.  Presumably someone will add it back (preferably someone who's actually familiar with the product ;-) Tedickey 00:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems to be only commenting that (while the product provides some degree of interoperability) there is a limitation of the Windows server implementation.  The second sentence could be (assuming it's reliably sourced...) moved to weaknesses. Tedickey (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The reference to Dfries' patch is great, but I still think the statement is overall a con, not a pro, and should be moved. Mugwump55 (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: This section is poorly written, e.g. "unlike recent SCM, you cannot commit a bunch of files" and "they accumulated a ton of code and are based on old architecture that make them slower and difficult to use that they could".  All the weaknesses are rather subjective, and don't have any citations.  Hertzsprung 17:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weaknesses section has weasel words 

message: I have an issue with citation 12, which apparently justifies this paragraph : 
"Speed: ClearCase dynamic views are slower than local filesystems, even with good network infrastructure. A benchmark shows that many basic tasks take about twice as long to run using a ClearCase dynamic view than on competing SCM tools. Basic operations on snapshot views can take more than ten times as long as on competing systems. Although initial builds using dynamic views require roughly twice as much time versus using a local filesystem [12],"
If you look at the source in 12 it is made by a competitor.  Having used clearcase I know it is slow, however if I was a new user I would not trust a competitor's marketing data as the best information.
-mike
Yes, I wrote that piece and I know. If you know of an independent benchmark, please cite it. The problem is, you can not just make benchmarks yourself and publish them because that would count as original research. Usually version control benchmarks do not compare build times because the entire idea that accessing files in source control would be slower is so absurd.
In my experience, those numbers are rather biased to favor ClearCase. Where I work, compiling on dynamic view takes about 2.5 times as long as on a plain file system or CC snapshot view. And that's on a slow encrypted hard disk. I would not believe it myself if I didn't have first hand experience.
192.100.130.7 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a reference and some information concerning speed-performance for windows clients. Erapade (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: What possible network configuration would make access to a remote-mounted file as fast as native disk access?  ALloydFlanagan (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Weaknesses Citation is from a competitor 

message: More information about Clearcase versions and corresponding dates is missing in my opinion. Does anyone have some information? It's difficult to find some on the Internet.
84.152.207.18 (talk) 08:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right about objectivity, Mr. 85.223.75.207. I just looked at your revision history and you have basically done little more than puff up this product. Objectivity? geezabrek...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.46.244.84 (talk) 14:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More history 

message: I changed a title from "Unique Features" to "Features", because clearly there is nothing unique in at least majority of the features listed. These are VOB, Interoperability, Integration. It may not be called VOB, but other SCM systems also maintain the data present in the VOB. 202.80.48.175 (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not brought out clearly in that section, but go up to "Views".  What was novel about the VOB was that it was implemented as a virtual filesystem.  DSEE was implemented using one of Apollo's features, the ability to have customized filesystems (an example would be compressed files, encrypted, etc. - the Apollo feature dated from the mid-1980s).  When ClearCase was implemented, it made this available in a more/less portable implementation, not relying on the Apollo features. Tedickey (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing unique about majority of features 

message: Hi,
I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor, so maybe you could help me. There's a link here to stackoverflow.com . To the best of my understanding of ClearCase the information there is OK, but the external links policy says that links to forums should be avoided. Can I remove it then? And if I remove it, should I replace it with "citation needed"?
Thank you. Kurepalaku (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's ostensibly sourcing the explanation of the abbreviation.  However, the linked topic in the statement already provides a reliable source.  So there's no need for the stackoverflow link, nor is a citation needed. (stackoverflow.com by its nature isn't WP:RS in any case) TEDickey (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   A link to stackoverflow.com 

message: This topic has changed since the WANdisco advertisement was added ostensibly to support the statement that "MVFS requires server access every time a file is accessed".  The source given doesn't support the statement (and reading WANdisco's page, it's apparent they did no benchmarking, etc., to justify the source). TEDickey (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of WANdisco advertisement as a source 

message: I think that ClearCase uses non standard terminology which is often confusing for users more familiar to other version control systems, however I cannot find any really authoritative sources that say so. However I have seen the same thoughts echoed on many forums, so is it wrong if I added the statements to the afore mentioned effect to the article? Gulielmus estavius (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Put another way, ClearCase preceded a handful of widely-used systems whose developers have based their jargon on a different source.  "non standard" per se would only be an appropriate comment if there were some official standards-setting body making suitable pronouncements on the matter TEDickey (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I can't call it non standard terminology, but could I call 'unusual terminology' ? Gulielmus estavius (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not.  Jargon is often unusual to people who haven't been using a particular flavor.  It's best to look for WP:RS which are reasonably independent (there's no point in sourcing something like that to developers or fans of whatever seems popular). TEDickey (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non standard terminology 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]]