in reply to Re^2: What's your prefered revision control system?
in thread What's your prefered revision control system?

Somehow, (and I should whip myself for it), I forgot about the total lack of security in Clearcase. Someday there will be a Windows-worm that contains an optional Clearcase vector that either corrupts files or replaces executable content (and/or makefiles), and it will decimate companies it gets inside. Open network shares and I can edit anyone's files on the network. *Not* cool.

I suppose it hasn't stung me yet, but unless Clearcase is forced on you, that's reason enough to avoid it. (But anyway, other than the leaking airplane gas tank (please ignore that gaping hole in the wing!), it flies well enough).

  • Comment on Re^3: What's your prefered revision control system?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: What's your prefered revision control system?
by jdporter (Paladin) on Oct 15, 2004 at 15:40 UTC
    SI, I think your criticisms of ClearCase are entirely unfair and undeserved. It is entirely inaccurate to say that ClearCase has a "total lack of security". On Unix, it uses Unix security, which is pretty good. On Windows, it re-implements a Unix-like security model (owner/group/world). In my experience, this security model has proven inadequate... but is easily overcome by custom implementations based on triggers. You can hook the check-out event, and deny the check-out if your defined criteria are not met. (Ditto for check-in, and many other operations.) In this way, I have restricted access to various vob areas and file types based on individual user name, group membership, and other special-case criteria. I've disabled certain groups of users from moving labels; I've prevented anyone from moving certain labels backwards; etc. The possibilities are endless. Oh, yeah - it does require that you have a CC admin with a clue.
[reply]

In Section Past Polls