We know Capella can be integrated with Git to do CM works. At the same time, CDO model repository can also do CM works.
Is there any big difference ? If I use CDO to manage my model (like T4C), is Git still necessary ?
Thanks in advance.
T4C does not exploit the native versioning capabilities of CDO. We use T4C for multi-user purposes only.
Therefore, a configuration management tool like Git remains necessary to manage branches, baselines, etc.
T4C repositories can be seen as “temporary” collaborative spaces dedicated to teamwork.
Thanks for your reply !
I am curious about why you don’t use the versioning feature of CDO in T4C ? Is it because CDO versioning has some known limits ? Or it is just a temporary solution to use Git for branch and merge, while T4C is trying to exploit more CDO functions ?
So you are using Git to manage requirements in DOORS ? Sorry this question has little to do with Capella itself, but we really need to take all relative things into consideration when implementing Capella. So do you treat DOORS also as a multi-user-editor, and use Git to do versioning and branching on reqif files ?
There is no one single answer to the question of managing global configuration. We do not use Git to manage requirements versioning. Doors already comes with its own versioning capabilities and we are using them. We did not exploit the ones of CDO because as editors of T4C, addressing something (versioning of models) that could be addressed in another way (via Git) was not our priority. In addition, it would have added pressure on the CDO repository (reliability and performance) and we did not want that.
But an engineering baseline could be made of reqif input files, system models, subsystem models, generated interfaces, etc. Not everything can be managed in one single CDO database.