Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

13
  • 4
    I think you are judging them if you think they're only interested in facts with dollar figures. And they might want terse explanations because verbose explanation can trick them into something they don't understand. The best approach is perhaps giving out a list of good things that Git has but ClearCase does not. Nevertheless, I feel corporate environment executives don't trust open source software especially if there is a well established enterprise version.
    – InformedA
    Commented Aug 6, 2014 at 4:42
  • 8
    recommended reading: How do I explain ${something} to ${someone}?
    – gnat
    Commented Aug 6, 2014 at 4:48
  • 2
    Demonstrate how much more using git makes you (and the other teams) effective in doing your duties. Do not volunteer replacing ClearCase without hearing the case for it, but show where the day to day benefits are. ClearCase may be required for build auditing or project wide issue tracking which Github is not strong in.
    – Kevin
    Commented Aug 6, 2014 at 4:59
  • 3
    If they're interested in dollars, show them the annual ClearCase licensing fees and the staff you have to pay to maintain it.
    – 17 of 26
    Commented Aug 6, 2014 at 13:41
  • 3
    "put on hold as primarily opinion-based " I very much disagree with this. From my question "What I'm trying to find are concrete facts demonstrating developers work more effectively with Git." What is opinion based about that?
    – Mike
    Commented Aug 6, 2014 at 17:21