Talk:Software configuration management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Page move[edit]

Shouldn't this article [currently named SCM] be toasted, or what of it is useful moved over to Software Configuration Management? -- 16:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. --Marc Girod 14:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This duplicates several articles such as version control and configuration management, and they should all be merged. Marc, it would help you told us why this article should exist, rather than pointing us somewhere else — you should be able to summarise the key points in a paragraph — and it is not enough to advert to your experience, you need to tell us what you have learnt. I agree, the article should be toast, just redirect to Software Configuration Management. --m.e. 2 July 2005 09:26 (UTC)
I stick to my opinion. Wikipedia is actually not the right place, because of its basic anti-SCM philosophy: it assumes the existence of a neutral point of view, and thus is non suitable for managing contexts. This is btw what I believe of the ME page: it is just one opinion, with which I fully disagree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:27, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

SCM definition in other words[edit]

I think that "SCM is a methodology to control and manage a software development project" is a too broad, generic statement to express a summarized definition of SCM with reasonable accuracy. In my opinion, this definition can be improved. I'm sorry that I don't have a suggestion right now.

What do you think about this? Does my observation make some sense?

Yes, to some extent I agree that the definition you cite here is too broad and generic. It does talk about the subject but SCM does in fact have specific practices that should be apparent in the definition. The Software Engineering Institute (SEI), responsible for researching and creating the CMM and CMMI business models, has a very clear and succinct definition for SCM (or CM in the CMMI). I suggest that the article at least recognize the aspects presented there. .digamma 02:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The point of view of SEI on SCM is neutral, i.e. interested, but non interesting. It is an anti-SCM point of view, because it pretends to be universal. Nobody has to be responsible for it. Nobody needs to manage it. This kind of thinking (which is the one of NPOV as I understand it, as well as the one of CM) is obsolete. SCM is a concern, borne in the context of an evolution. Definitions of SCM miss their point unless they are meant to be opposed, criticized, diff'ed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marc Girod (talkcontribs) 18:07, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

SCM is not part of CM[edit]

The first sentence of the page is controversial, or it is naive, in a way which doesn't resist examination. CM is not well defined. I.e. it is defined in many ways, usually inconsistent with each other, and essentially so. What is often understood (and documented, even in some standards) with CM is not any kind of abstract concept, rather an old concept (pre-software) optimized for historical tools (meetings and coffee). SCM is not part of that. It is more of an anti-thesis of this CM. Since everything can be represented with software, and software representations are suitable to be managed with software tools, SCM allows to manage any kind of information in a radically more powerful way than any conceivable competitive approach. It is thus from a practical point of view the only receivable kind of CM. CM which is not SCM is not CM at all. This point of view is not neutral. But no other point of view is, especially the one exposed in the current article. Marc Girod (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Software Configuration Management (ALM) is part of CM (Configuration Management) and Source Code Management (Revision control) is a sub part of Software Configuration Management. Using the acronym SCM on its own in the context of this article (and discussion) is horrifically ambiguous.

difference from "source code management"[edit]

There exists also another "SCM": source code management, which looks similar to this concept (at least, the examples like BitKeeper, Mercurial suggest that these two things are similar). Could someone explicitly state what difference is meant by these different terms?--Imz (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Added to the article. -- Beland (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Confusion between Source Code Management (Revision control) and Software Configuration Management[edit]

I have replaced the list of what were primarily revision control tools with a link to ALM tools as it was confusing the two concepts. IMO use of the term 'Software Configuration Management' is a bad idea.


what means Free Open Source Software vendor? advisability to put license here (bsd-style, apache-style, gpl, etc..) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I see under vendors most links are to other Wikipedia articles, however a few link directly to the vendor websites. Doesn't this violate Wikipedia rules? See [[1]] Starrymessenger (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Software Configuration Management is more than version control[edit]

The introductory paragraph is misleading. It implies that SCM is only about tracking changes over time (which is the province of revision control). It is more about how to create different configurations of software - for example, for different client requirements. Part of that is being able to create earlier versions but that is just one aspect.

AndrewWPhillips (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Four years after AndrewWPhillips' comment and the introductory paragraph is still misleading, with much of the rest of the page misleading, wrong, or just failing to communicate what configuration management is actually about. I'm not offering a fix just yet but gutting the page may well be a good start. I know doing that without some decent references is likely to make things no better so I'm going to go off and see if I happen across enough non-vague sources that I can put something together. PeterHansen (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This subject is about Configuration[edit]

I agree with Andrew's direction and want to go deeper. This is about management of Configurable Items (Components) in Configurations. Initially it was for Hardware as in cars and airplanes. Then in Data Center IT Configurable Items. And finally in Software Components. Not all software is constructed to be configurable. Windows platform is a good example of configurable software. Configurable by Microsoft, not by the users. Configurable as in a production line. Tools to support Software-CM must be able to handle a structure of configurable (software) components and based on features, functions, requirements, specifications be able to render an executable configuration. (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC) . — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)