I've started working on a project that is using ClearCase as it's source control tool and I'm still learning how to use it and what it does for us. My previous background has been mostly with CVS and dash of Subversion thrown in. My initial impression is that while CVS seems to focus on keeping it simple, ClearCase seems to be more concerned with making sure there are checks and balances.
As I was looking through the code and seeing things that, while they aren't causing any harm, probably should be fixed (like, unused imports, typos, etc...) I'm realizing that in CVS I would've just done it. By in my new world I'm going to need to submit a formal request explaining what I'm changing and why to get a approval so that someone can create a ticket that I can then check the code out against.
There are times where that checks and balance stuff is really nice - I imagine. Possibly when you're trying to change a piece of code that is central to the application. I wonder how much it squashes peoples desire to clean things up. There must be a happy middle ground, which is something I need to research and think about some more.
