Not touchy at all ... all questions/comments welcome and encouraged!

In particular, yes, the IBM vision is that CC and CQ will continue to be
central offerings in the IBM product line. What we have found is that
one size does not fit all ... the optimal SCM system for one customer is
not the optimal SCM system for all customers. This is sometimes even
true for different teams within a single organization, which is why we
have built (and continue to enhance) the Connectors, so that in
particular, teams using CC/CQ can interact closely with teams using RTC.

Also note that Jazz technology (which is what RTC was built on) will
also be used over time to enhance the CC and CQ offerings.

For teams starting "fresh" with RTC, they assumedly did so because that
was a better fit for them than CC/CQ. But there might easily be teams
within their organization that find CC/CQ a better fit (they might need
dynamic views or build auditing, for example) ... and if so, the
Connectors would be used to integrate those teams.

WRT your enthusiasm for RTC, that's great! (In particular, it sounds
like you are one of those teams for whom RTC is a much better fit that
CC/CQ ... that's good to hear, given all the time/energy we've invested
in RTC :-).

Cheers,
Geoff


micjohnson997 wrote:

IBM folks,

Not sure if this is a touchy subject or not, but I'll just throw it
out there. Is there a vision within IBM about the continued
existence/purpose of CC/CQ in a world where Jazz/RTC "rules the
day?" I am guessing that the CC/CQ connectors are there purely
for Jazz teams who want to export/import items/code to/from
"legacy" CC/CQ databases. If we were starting fresh with
Jazz, would there be any reason to need to use CC/CQ?

What is the "future vision" of CC/CQ from IBM? Do they even
have a future? Or is everything expected to eventually move to Jazz
source control/work items? (Which, BTW, would be a great vision --
Jazz seems to handily trump CC/CQ for anything I ever need to
do...!!)

Thanks in advance,
Mike Johnson

Yes, the main problem with such a comparison is that it would be apples
vs. oranges, so feature-lists are likely to be more misleading than
informative. For example, suppose you are using multi-site because your
team is geographically distributed. We've put a lot of effort into
making the Jazz repository services work well over a WAN, which means
you shouldn't need multi-site with Jazz just because your team is
geographically distributed.

Cheers,
Geoff



micjohnson997 wrote:

Geoff,

Thanks for the reply! Do you know of anywhere that compares Jazz vs.
CC/CQ on a feature level? I know it's somewhat of apples vs.
oranges, but it would be interesting at least from a SCM and work
item tracking perspective. For example, I know that CC (and CQ) has
a "multi-site" capability, but I don't think there is a
corresponding capability in Jazz (yet?) It would be nice if there
were such a comparison for folks that are perusing the Rational
product line.

Thanks,
Mike