What are the the potential risks with using CM Bridge ?

Question

Our company is using ClearCase for version control and as a medium to exchange code with sibling companies.
Some of these sites are planning to switch from CC to sub version. Our site management is unenthusiastic about replacing our version control system.

A possible compromise is using the CM bridge by Clearvision, but I found next to zero customers reviews about this product.
I as especially interested the risks involved with using it.

Can anyone point out any such risks or possible difficulties associated with this product ?

Answer 1

All migration we did are from ClearCase to Subversion, without bridge or synchronization after the migration: it is simply not worth it.

The major risk for those migrations is to blindly import all the history, all the branches (including the ones locked and/or obsolete??? The documentation -- administration guide -- never mentions those kind of objects), all the labels (including the ones set only on 3 files, as opposed to full baselines set on all the files of an UCM component)

The differences are too important between the file-atomic operations of ClearCase and the repository-wide commits from Subversion to hope getting a complete mirror.
That also leads to the second major risk: adapting and evolving the set of practices around the VCS: having two in parallel means more work and a more error-prone environment to deal with two VCS.