What this definition has in common with all the ones I have seen so far is that it states a bland opinion in complete ignorance of (at least not commenting on differences with) any other definition.
In short, it doesn't attempt to be itself "manageable" information. Not a surprise that we get random results without any kind of progress!
SCM is subject to "evolution" laws: species which couldn't prove to have any advantage over the others get replaced with random ones.
The failure of proprietary SCM tools to establish a standard resulted in a reset (similar to what happened with OO databases in the 90's), so that Open Source tools are more or less conceptually 30 years old.
They (Mercurial and Git, not subversion) have fixed the mistake with delivering by merging back, though.
Marc
It is unfortunate that "version control" is often presented as the totality of CM. As I recall, even this website, CMCrossroads, once touted such a notion. You only have to look down at the (old) menus of tools.
There are:
1. CM Products (now a combination of the old "CM Products" (read VM tools) and Integrated Tools").
2. Development Tools,(which appear to be what is left of purely issue tracking tools)
Then of course you have production line "Build" tools, but that's a separate issue.
And to make matters worse, I don't subscribe to any notion of SCM. CM is CM is CM.
CMCrossroads is a TechWell community.
Through conferences, training, consulting, and online resources, TechWell helps you develop and deliver great software every day.
