[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unix philosophy under the gun?
Re: Unix philosophy under the gun?
Fri, 03 Aug 2001 16:57:02 -0400
"Greg A. Woods" wrote:
> [ On Friday, August 3, 2001 at 14:51:24 (-0400), David Fuller wrote: ]
> > Subject: Re: Unix philosophy under the gun?
> > The glue in question involves reporting, logging, replication/mirroring,
> > and integration with other products (such as bug/feature tracking).
> Did you do a cost-benefit analysis of those features too?
> Did you also do a true and in-depth total cost of ownership analysis for
> the the alternative solutions over the lifetime of the projects
> involved? There are a lot of hidden costs that many people miss and
> others prefer to ignore....
First bear in mind that I said 'sample' numbers. While we tried to
include everything we could think of in our analysis, the full analysis
is yet to come.
> I'll bet you could drop down any of them to a level of functionality
> that would exatly meet your needs but where the costs of implementing
> the necessary CVS glue would be lower than any thing else every time.
> I.e. I'll bet even though you're getting more up-front features for less
> money in some off-the-shelf thing, they're not all features you need and
> in the end you're actually paying more money for those things you don't
Actually, no. Most of the features we do need, some are required by our
customers. What we actually need is a system that would support 5
different levels of process we identified as necessary to cover the
range of projects we deal with. CVS could easily cover the lowest 2
levels, and with little work could cover the third, but the cost of the
highest 2 levels was what took a significant amount of effort.
> (Of course the same could be said of Aegis or other freeware tools, or
> even of some commercial tools that would need similar integration, such
> as BitKeeper.)
> > And
> > why shouldn't CVS be able to integrate with 'a decent build system'? I
> > wouldn't expect CVS to be a build system, but to work with one would be
> > nice. And yes, I'm sure it can, but it would take time to get that
> > integration in there.
> Indeed CVS can be "integrated" with the build system! I have it built
> into Automake and Autoconf..... I just update the release identifier in
> my "configure.in" file (and commit it of course) and then type "make
> release". A fully tested source archive with all necessary intermediate
> products included comes out the other end and my repository has a new
> tag now marking the event. It's not magic. It's not even more than a
> few dozen lines of write-once shell script in a portable Makefile
> produced automatically for every one of my projects by my customised
> version of automake!
> That's release management and builds (source tars _are_ my product) all
> rolled into one!
Customized version of automake? Interesting. Yet another thing to
maintain... I would be interested in seeing your build system. The
availability of tools built by others would greatly help to reduce the
cost of CVS in a larger system. I'm sure these things have all been
built before, unfortunately most people don't post them on the web,
don't update them, or you simply can't find them.
> > Here's a question. What is there to prevent CVS from becoming modular
> > to the same degree as Apache? Certainly time is a factor. I'd love to
> > work on that one if only I had more time (24 hours is never enough).
> That's putting the cart so far in front of the horse that the horse
> can't even see it! ;-)
Huh? You really lost me on that one. An examination of the CVS system
and knowledge of the Apache module architecture could probably result in
a similar architecture for CVS. It's all just a matter of time...
-- David F.
Re: Unix philosophy under the gun?, Greg A. Woods, 2001/08/03
RE: Unix philosophy under the gun?, Greg A. Woods, 2001/08/03