SCM on SCM

We have many definitions of Software Configuration Management. Is it a good or a bad thing? Henri Poincaré noticed in 1906 that there were numerous definitions of the concept of number, and concluded that there was no surprise: if any one was satisfying, everybody would stop producing new ones.

So why are all these definitions unsatisfying? Do we manage this situation? Should we consider all the definitions as distinct configuration items or as different representations (versions?) of the same? And what are the software configurations (the contexts) in which they have been produced?

Then what have all these definitions in common? How do they differ from each other?

How did we come to this point? A definition of SCM, what for? Who needs that?

Can SCM be defined? One needs SCM to manage complex things. Is a thing that can be defined complex enough for this task? One challenge is certainly to keep the definition open, to make sure to give only partial requirements.

-- MarcGirod - 23 Dec 2002

The important thing is not necessarily to have a standard definition so much as a shared understanding. By reading through many such definitions, one may not see a single agreed upon set of words; but one can see many of the same concepts and principles and ideas recurring throughout, and therein reach a shared understanding of what SCM is. By seeing many definitions in many voices, one can better find one's own voice for expressing one's own personal understanding, enriched by the diverse expression of the commonly recurring elements.

-- BradAppleton^? - 21 Jan 2003

Unfortunately, the more it goes, and the more I feel the profusion of definitions we have results in hiding deep misunderstandings, and some disagreements. Of course, one can only disagree on top of some agreement, but I feel this is currently not managed.

-- MarcGirod - 16 Feb 2003

That is, SCM = the Source of Common Misunderstandings^?

-- TerryMiramax^? - 16 Feb 2003

The problem with definitions and (mis)understandings is a matter of interpretation and perception. Definition is the fruit of a writer, while interpretation is the fruit of the reader (or user if you will). There is no way you can force a reader to understand the meaning of a definition in a particular way. This is an essential dilemma of communication.

But do we need a perfect understanding about CM to make it practical? No! If you want to shoot a duck, you should pull the trigger before it has flown away.

-- FrankSchophuizen^? - 19 Feb 2003

How to say? perfect, no; but perfectible yes. At least for SCM. For CM, I wouldn't care so much. But detecting the misunderstandings, should be a good start. Management proceeds from sharing through discrimination.

-- MarcGirod - 24 Feb 2003