Dave Schenpper wrote:

>
> I think there was an overfocus on marion's shortcomings.
>

I agree. It was abandoned not because of a fundamental flaw,
but because no-one maintained it. So the descision to
abandon it was trying to solve a managment problem with software.
Almost never works.

> Marion's best feature (2nd best being using IB) is the change history
> it keeps. There has been innumerable times I used that as part of a
> bug fixing strategy.
> "Ok, here's the buggy code".
> "When was it introduced, and why?"
> "Does the new fix also fix the original problem".
> "What other changes did the same programmer put in about the same
> time in other modules that may have the same problem?"
> "Where has this buggy code been cloned to? Where was it cloned
> from?"

This true. But other real source control systems have this ability
too. ;-)

>
> Many change control systems have links to bug tracking systems --
> marion's strategy was bit different, and it made it easy to do these
> kind of history searches.
>
> As for the main task at hand -- that kinda depends on the where the
> bottleneck is for getting 6.0 out the door. If it's going to be
> mainly NewCo folk pushing it out, then continuing to use marion may be
> the best (short-term) strategy. Changing tools is always a short-term
> disruption. (Though, of course, changing to a better tool could
> shorten cycles -- "Sharpen the saw").
>

I agree. The plan (at IB) was to keep using marion through 6.0
As you mentioned in another post, outside contributions can
still be integrated easily if they are created with diff and
patch.

>

_________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE portalofevil.com Email account at...
http://www.portalofevil.com

PortalofEvil.com - Websites by the insane for the insane.
_________________________________________________________