Merant VM web client: VM web client Project Databases
6 users have logged in since November 19, 2003
Granted, you have to call their sales group to get a login to this demo, but obviously people aren’t beating down their door. I’ve got a long list of gripes with PVCS Version Manager [18.104.22.168 (Build 297) to be exact]. Not the least of which is a woefully inadequate branching and merging model. Their sales docs and data sheet don’t seem to hint that much has changed. Though, at this link they say
Merant Version Manager – automates common team development tasks, protects code for safe reuse and parallel development, and prevents lost changes and content errors
More than source code protection
Merant Version Manager enables and automates complex team tasks such as parallel development, visual differencing, branching and merging, identification of merge conflicts, promotion levels and team workflow.</p>
Even the long title (taken directly from the web page) leaves a bad impression of pure sales jargon or a blatant attempt at a high search rank.
I’ll leave my technical beef with PVCS for another post.
Not only has Hibernate released a new stable version, but I really like the way their “Recent Site Upddates” table looks. It’s all tables and CSS, using mouse events to change the row colors. It’s compact, and pretty. I like it.
Our current implementation of testing emails received is WAY too slow!! It uses a sleep loop to watch an IMAP inbox for a message with a particular subject. There are several problems.
- The mailbox needs to be cleaned of all test e-mails before each test, in case a stray message of the same subject was left by a failed previous test: TIME CONSUMING
- The current mail server we use to deliver test e-mails takes more than 1 minute per message.
- All testing is blocked until the e-mail arrives for the current test. Any way to make parallel tests would really help. Any way to have asynchronously look for an e-mail and then fail a test after it’s passed might help too.
The merits of testing the actual IMAP/POP inbox for a message are highly debatable too. Unit testing usually should use mock objects to fake complex parts of the system, but this is funtional end-to-end testing. So what should it do? Is it useful? We’re up to 67 minutes of test time. This is getting ridiculous.
Hmm. It looks like this description of a new Ant task has some styles to it. I’d like to figure out how to use those for creating some simple documentation of my own. I’m almost positive that the source file is XML. I just need to find it again..
Erik Hatcher and Steve Loughran mention a future paper I’d really like to read in this excerpt of antbook-update.pdf (application/pdf Object)
Some day soon we will explain how the book was done, and how books could be
done better in future in a little paper, Refactoring the Publishing Process .
For now, key points are:
- CVS server on a Redhat 7.1 system, “eiger” in the home DMZ.
- Home stateful firewall (WebRamp) set to allow port 22, ssh through.
- Office XP with tracking enabled.
- Ant wherever we could.
Steve says “I don’t know how it has ended up that you need to have a home
DMZ to keep your server and 802.11b LAN separate from your other boxes,
with two levels of firewall to make deploying across a house complex, but it has.
It’s bad enough defending against script kiddies, pretty soon I’ll have to worry
about the RIAA too.”
So far I haven’t seen this paper, but the idea seems great and I hope to see it soon!