Re: Clear Case & Frame Docs.

[Janet_Swisher -at- trilogy -dot- com]

Susan W. Gallagher wrote: 

>At 11:22 AM 10/21/99 -0700, Mark Dempsey wrote:

>>We're told we must use Clear Case for our Frame docs, and I believe this
>>is a colossal waste of time and resources...

>I'm not sure why you feel that way, Mark.

>Okay, maybe I wouldn't choose Clear Case. Okay, so just maybe
>Clear Case is a little more engineering-centric than the
>typical doc group would prefer, but still, wouldn't you be more
>comfortable with *some* kind of version control system in place???

>Frankly, once I found out how cool version control/configuration
>management really is, I'd be hard pressed to run a doc department
>without it.

>Were I you, I'd be pleased that someone above me thought enough
>of the doc product to include it with the rest of the software.
>Quityerbitchin and say "thank you" -- someone in your company
>appreciates what you do!   ;-)

I agree with Sue.  Sure, it would be great to have a 
documentation-oriented repository like Documentum, but any kind of source 
control is better than none, and ClearCase is one of the better ones. 
(Trust me: I did configuration management in an earlier life.)  My company 
is in the midst of migrating to ClearCase from a mix of PVCS and 
SourceSafe, and one of the goals is to get all the tech writers using 
ClearCase (most did not use the earlier systems).  With binary files like 
FrameMaker docs, you lose some of the features, like diff and merge, but 
you still get most of the benefits.  Another beneficial side-effect you 
get as a tech writer is the extra increment of respect because you're 
using the same tools as the engineers.

Janet Swisher
Trilogy Software, Inc.