( ESNUG 364 Item 11 ) -------------------------------------------- [02/01/01]
Subject: ( ESNUG 345 #5 ) Well, Synchronicity's DesignSync Works For Us
> We used ClearCase for an ASIC and it works great. We used DesignSync from
> Synchronicity on one project. It was a disaster. DesignSync is like an
> early beta version of RCS that they charge a lot of money for! We had
> problems with corrupted databases and lost files. In ClearCase we see
> nothing like this. It just works in the background as a good revison
> control system should do. In the past we have used RCS on many projects
> but it started to consume a lot of the designers time to manage the system
> and create scripts so we started to look around for alternatives. After
> the DesignSync mistake we have settled on ClearCase, which is also the
> system our software designers are using.
>
> - [ We Got Burned, Too ]
From: Grant Erwin <gwe@cypress.com>
Hi, John.
Personally, I think your readers are being a little tough on Synchronicity's
DesignSync. It is a part of the very fabric of life here at Cypress, and
we are successful in using this tool to allow us to distribute design work
among Cypress design centers worldwide. Sure, we have a few problems, and
sure, it takes longer than we'd like to copy data from India or the UK. We
have to devote CAD resources to its maintenance. But it is working for us,
and we have made dozens of chips successfully with it.
I do the Synchronicity administration for Cypress's Washington State design
center, and I came from companies which used Clearcase and before that RCS
and SCCS. I don't have anything really bad to say about any other software
except I haven't ever seen it working where design teams on several
continents successfully design with the data visible everywhere, and have
it work.
I believe that this tool does have room for improvement, but I just don't
see the horror story scenario here. I'm not speaking for Cypress, this is
just my own viewpoint.
- Grant Erwin
Cypress Washington State
|
|
