CM and Tools

While SCM tools come with their own SCM philosophies, creating our (not necessarily perceived) SCM realities, what do the CM tools do? Or rather what is the CM view on (S)CM tools and their role?

From CM point of view the tools are generally considered to be black boxes, having some general characteristics though (e.g. light, heavy). They may (optionally) be of some help/use (e.g. for automating certain parts of the defined processes).

THE process is supposed to exist prior to/independently of any tool. The tools can never change anything significant in the way CM is done.

And having heard the above statement, one sees with amazement, that CM warmly welcomes the so-called “process-oriented” tools coming with the "out-of-the-box" process! Why should those be welcomed? - They most probably contradict with CM own, "general", "tool-independent" processes?!

Is this one more evidence of the fact that one had been blinded by a certain tool realm, without realizing it, when was creating "the process"?

Or may it be sometimes even trickier (when one claims being independent of any tool influence in one's CM ontology)? - Just imagine a situation when a person knows (roughly) some particular tool, tries to hide the fact (it's called "objectiveness"), pretends the tool wouldn't exist and then makes up what would it be to perform this tool's job manually.

Perhaps it's then, that such "general" prescriptions in the CM processes are created as e.g.: "One has to limit the number of CIs in the system, as properly controlling too many is impossible. Thus, every potential CI should first be treated a CI candidate and can only become a CI after a special approval".

One more amazing thing is that the bulkier, slower and more inconvenient are the "out-of-box" processes, ... the better they feel (for CM world)! This is perhaps because of the CM stated need of the "balance" between the technology (not too much - it is dangerous!) and the manual work (it is safe, since traditional).

-- TatyanaShpichko? - 04 Feb 2007