|
> -----Original Message----- > From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx / CWilt@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > Dan, > > Sounds to me like you (and your auditors) would be better served > by having a > Change Management System in place. > > Seems like you're thinking of spending a significant amount of > CPU and DASD > resources tracking this information live. When I would imagine all you > really want to be able to do is answer the question who changed what when. > With logging, automatic archive, and built in ways to compare versions of > source, most if not CMS software will easily answer those questions. > > Aldon and Turnover come to mind. > > Charles Good points to consider, Charles. CMS, by its definition & purpose, is not really the issue for us, and would really raise the complexity level for the simple tracking we are attempting to accomplish. I don't want to have to force check in / check out processes -- there aren't that many of us that we can't keep track of who is working on what. Not to mention the expense of CMS. As far as resources, we are literally "swimming" in available DASD & CPU, so resources are not an issue (at this time). At the very least, we need to see what the resource hit will be. Thanks, db
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.