MQ use-case (Up/down grades)

Aurélien Campéas aurelien.campeas at pythonian.fr
Mon Oct 16 19:27:11 UTC 2017


Hi,

I think Pierre-Yves will be the most qualified to warn against
any issue with evolve/mq co-existence.

Just my 2 cents: your special use-case could probably be also
handled with evolve, granted you keep that special branch/patch in
draft mode forever (and rebase it at will wherever you need). But your
workflow is not completely clear to me.

Regards,
Aurélien.


Le 16/10/2017 à 17:39, BOGGESS Rod   TENOVA INC a écrit :
> I’m looking to switch to Evolve from MQ, and in most cases, it appears 
> (from documentation) to do a better job. So I’m enabling it to test and 
> learn before I advocate it to the rest of the group. Mostly, I wanted to 
> know if there were any interactions or problems in using both together 
> on the same repo. That said, there’s a use-case were I’m having trouble 
> imagining that Evolve works better than MQ.
> 
> There are several applications we use, for example, Visual Studio and 
> Kepware, where it’s possible to have two developers working with 
> different versions than the deployment versions. So, let’s say that the 
> original software was deployed with Visual Studio 2005. A customer calls 
> up for us to troubleshoot a problem, and we’ve upgraded to 2008 or 2010 
> (a few of us even have 2015). We can’t go back and buy 2005 even if we 
> wanted to because it’s MS policy to pull old copies from the shelves 
> when they release upgrades. The code is basically the same, but the 
> build (MS Build) works a bit differently and uses different files.
> 
> We upgrade the project, then store the modifications for the upgrade in 
> a patch. You work your changes, swap the order of the patches, then 
> finalize only the programmatic changes. The customer will have the 
> original Visual Studio version and we do the last build on the remote 
> machine, though there has only ever been one case where the C# code 
> didn’t build (an new keyword was added that the older version didn’t 
> support, and correcting it was a ‘Duh’ moment, easily fixed and forgotten).
> 
> Because of this, I don’t really see us ever fully abandoning MQ patches, 
> but for managing standard rewrites, using Evolve would be an 
> improvement, so I’d be interested in knowing if there are known problems 
> running both (or if there’s a good reason to use evolve even for this 
> weird use-case).
> 
> 
> 
> Tenova: Innovative Solutions for Metals and Mining <http://www.tenova.com>
> *Tenova: Innovative Solutions for Metals and Mining
> *Visit our website at: www.tenova.com
> 



More information about the Evolve-testers mailing list