| Author |
Message
|
| shashivarungupta |
 Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:51 pm Post subject: Version Control System? |
 |
|
Grand Master
Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 1343
Location: Floating in space on a round rock.
|
Hi,
I would like to receive your suggestions about 'Which' Version Control Systems (Products/Fixes/Utilities) should be used, that can be well gelled with WebSphere Message Broker v8 / IIB v9, to control the versions of message broker applications, which doesn't bring complexity in the huge middleware system but an ease to maintain them.
Expected features:
- Ease of maintainability (the integrity of system with different environments)
- Ease of check-in and check-out of application/library/schema/wsdl and/or dependent source.
- Ease of version and revision handling of broker applications (and their dependent source codes).
- That comes with vendor support (if provided).
*Apart from SVN (Subversion)
Thanks.
_________________
*Life will beat you down, you need to decide to fight back or leave it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| fjb_saper |
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 20756
Location: LI,NY
|
Well looks like out of the gates you're tossing the one we all thought about reading your description... What's wrong with SVN?
_________________
MQ & Broker admin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| shashivarungupta |
| Posted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 1343
Location: Floating in space on a round rock.
|
| fjb_saper wrote: |
| ... What's wrong with SVN? |
It gets complex when svn:externals are involved in the applications/libraries, to its depandents (interfaces/generic codes/non-generic codes etc.).
More over it gets more complex when an application is required in multiple releases (in multiple environments) at different times but using same application (of same or different versions) with one or more generic/non-generic codes (of same or different versions).
I don't know if that confuses you more. 
We have SVN and its working fine for us till now but there is nothing wrong in updating the system if there is a scope to do so, if there is a product/feature that can be used to simplify the system and reduce its complexity, with lesser manual efforts.
_________________
*Life will beat you down, you need to decide to fight back or leave it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
If you have a system (in terms both of the broker code and the devleopment practices) that requires you to tie SVN in knots, then you're not going to have a lot more luck with any of the other options.
Clearly GitHub is le flavor d'jour and it does have an interestingly "upended" view of source control. Put very simply, rather than checking out a copy of the code, the developer pulls down a copy and pushes it back (via a review process) when complete.
The other option that comes to mind is ClearCase; you could manage the multiple releases / multiple environments / different versions using tags and views.
But the key thing that occurs to me is that the development process you've described sounds like anarchy, and putting source code "control" in it is something between a band aid on a broken leg and a tin whistle to control a riot. Saying "it gets complex" is as euphamistic as the chief engineer on the Titanic claiming there was "something of a leak". You're trying to juggle chain saws, and a better catcher's glove will only give the illusion of safety.
Organize your development process first, then think about the workflow through source code software. Given the number of pieces and parts you have, consider one of the Agile methodolgies (and the first person who says "there's really only one Agile" will get a slap from the Trout Of Seriously?) and put some rigour back into your world.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| shashivarungupta |
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Grand Master
Joined: 24 Feb 2009
Posts: 1343
Location: Floating in space on a round rock.
|
Thanks for your inputs.
(Existing system does follow Agile Method and its development processes are not very new but have been very successful over the past 10 years or so.
Laid down development process helps the IT Middleware Infrastructure hand-in-hand to maintain it without breaking and causing issues to business, which is an another important aspect of functional system.
The time is to see things from different angles to improve the corners towards simplicity and effectiveness, again without breaking the existing system).
Thanks indeed.
_________________
*Life will beat you down, you need to decide to fight back or leave it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| smdavies99 |
| Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jedi Council
Joined: 10 Feb 2003
Posts: 6076
Location: Somewhere over the Rainbow this side of Never-never land.
|
| shashivarungupta wrote: |
The time is to see things from different angles to improve the corners towards simplicity and effectiveness, again without breaking the existing system).
|
Ah! Where Agile morphs into Fragile without you noticing it.
_________________
WMQ User since 1999
MQSI/WBI/WMB/'Thingy' User since 2002
Linux user since 1995
Every time you reinvent the wheel the more square it gets (anon). If in doubt think and investigate before you ask silly questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| paustin_ours |
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yatiri
Joined: 19 May 2004
Posts: 667
Location: columbus,oh
|
my $0.02 more often than not, a new tool is imposed on development team without their invovlement in the decision making process. This back fires when frustrated team members start finding loop holes and bypass process. Nobody likes change especially when it is a change in process.
First understand from the development team what the current pain points are and see if there is a really need for a new tool or a need for a process change. GIT as kool as it sounds needs a lot of education and getting used to.
I cant tell you how many clients have a shitty process and think somehow changing the tool will fix their problems. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| shashivarungupta wrote: |
| The time is to see things from different angles to improve the corners towards simplicity and effectiveness, again without breaking the existing system |
The need to develop without breaking the existing system is self evident, and is a cornerstone (pun intended) of the Agile methodology. If you're trying to improve the corner because (to quote you):
| shashivarungupta wrote: |
| It gets complex ... lesser manual efforts |
If the system is working but requires much manual effort, it's not working. It's creaking. I stand by my earlier comments and feel that this talk of "improving" the system is euphamistic.
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Vitor |
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grand High Poobah
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Posts: 26093
Location: Texas, USA
|
| paustin_ours wrote: |
| GIT as kool as it sounds needs a lot of education and getting used to. |
Now there's the truth!
| paustin_ours wrote: |
| I cant tell you how many clients have a shitty process and think somehow changing the tool will fix their problems. |
_________________
Honesty is the best policy.
Insanity is the best defence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
