Dissecting Configuration Management Policies

  • Ronald van der Lingen
  • André van der Hoek
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2649)


A configuration management policy specifies the procedures through which a user evolves artifacts stored in a configuration management system. Different configuration management systems typically use different policies, and new policies continue to be developed. A problem in the development of these new policies is that existing policies (and their implementations) typically cannot be reused. As a basis for a future solution, this paper presents a new configuration management system architecture that focuses on modularly specified policies. In particular, policies consist of a set of constraint modules, which enforce the desired repository structure, and a set of action modules, which govern the desired user interaction. New policies can be developed by combining relevant existing modules from existing policies with new modules that specify the unique aspects of the new policy. We demonstrate how several quite different configuration management policies can be effectively constructed this way.


Action Module Client Side Version Tree Configuration Management Constraint Module 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    U. Asklund, L. Bendix, H.B. Christensen, and B. Magnusson. The Unified Extensional Versioning Model. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on System Configuration Management, 1999: p. 100–122Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Berliner. CVS II: Parallelizing Software Development. Proceedings of the USENIX Winter 1990 Technical Conference, 1990: p. 341–352Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Carzaniga. DVS 1.2 Manual. Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1998Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Conradi and B. Westfechtel, Version Models for Software Configuration Management. ACM Computing Surveys, 1998. 30(2): p. 232–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Estublier. Defining and Supporting Concurrent Engineering Policies in SCM. Proceedings of the Tenth International Workshop on Software Configuration Management, 2001Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P.H. Feiler. Configuration Management Models in Commercial Environments. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 1991Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. Mens, A State-of-the-Art Survey on Software Merging. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2002. 28(5): p. 449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    B.P. Munch. Versioning in a Software Engineering Database — the Change-Oriented Way. Ph.D. Thesis, DCST, NTH, 1993Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    F. Parisi-Presicce and A.L. Wolf. Foundations for Software Configuration Management Policies using Graph Transformations. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, 2000: p. 304–318Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M.J. Rochkind, The Source Code Control System. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 1975. SE-1(4): p. 364–370Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Software Maintenance & Development Systems Inc. Aide de Camp Product Overview. 1994Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W.F. Tichy, RCS, A System for Version Control. Software — Practice and Experience, 1985. 15(7): p. 637–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13., Subversion,, 2002
  14. 14., Subversion Frequently Asked Questions,, 2002
  15. 15.
    A. van der Hoek. A Generic, Reusable Repository for Configuration Management Policy Programming. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder, Department of Computer Science, 2000Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. van der Hoek, A. Carzaniga, D.M. Heimbigner, and A.L. Wolf, A Testbed for Configuration Management Policy Programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2002. 28(1): p. 79–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Walrad and D. Strom, The Importance of Branching Models in SCM. IEEE Computer, 2002. 35(9): p. 31–38Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A.I. Wang, J.-O. Larsen, R. Conradi, and B.P. Munch. Improving Coordin ation Support in the EPOS CM System. Proceedings of the Sixth European Workshop in Software Process Technology, 1998: p. 75–91Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Westfechtel, B.P. Munch, and R. Conradi, A Layered Architecture for Uniform Version Management. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2001. 27(12): p. 1111–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D. Wiborg Weber. Change Sets versus Change Packages: Comparing Implementations of Change-Based SCM. Proceedings of the Seventh International Workshop on Software Configuration Management, 1997: p. 25–35Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Zeller and G. Snelting, Unified Versioning through Feature Logic. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 1997. 6(4): p. 398–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ronald van der Lingen
    • 1
  • André van der Hoek
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information and Computer ScienceUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations