From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-03 15:29:37
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> on Fri Aug 03 2007, David Abrahams <dave-AT-boost-consulting.com> wrote:
> To me focusing on the tools is a temptation that gets nourished by the
> fact that tools are more tangible than processes. However, the distinction
> often is blurry. As you know, there have been endless discussions about whether
> to use CVS, SVN, GIT, or whatever, and bjam, cmake, scons, etc.
> It is fun to look at alternatives to better grasp the limitations of the tools
> currently in use. But constantly looking for what next generation of tools to
> replace the current ones with, to me, looks like a broken process, too.
> (To paraphrase: Not spending enough time in thinking about focus, scope, and
> strategy is a problem in many projects I have seen, and in all such cases people
> were keen on fixing the tools.)
> That's why I'm suspicious that 'fixing the tools' alone will change much.
Frankly this is missing the point that both Doug and I raise. The most important point is
reliability. Our given tool chain is not even close to providing the reliability that is
needed to support any kind of process. This is not about bells and whistles it's about
*making it work*.
Another important point is to make it easy for people to do the right thing. If the right
way to do things is at the same time the easiest way. Your success rate will be much
higher than with any kind of procedure. And no amount of documentation or communication of
the process will change this basic fact.
In essence the argument is over spending effort wisely. Fixing our tools will gives us a
much higher return on investment than tinkering with the process. Once our tools are up to
par it'll be worthwhile to look at the process. Doing it the other way round is like
buying an expensive map to make up for a broken GPS.
-- Thomas Witt witt_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk