ClearCase Dynamic View Checking for Changes

Hello, we're evaluating TC 4.5.4 on Linux using CC dynamic views (Base).

We're building directly inside the dynamic view, so not checking anything out. I've set up several VCS roots to check for changes so I can trigger a build on check-ins.

Issue we have is the time it takes to check for changes, after a couple of hours of trying it fails as so:

java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException: jetbrains.buildServer.vcs.VcsException: Problem collecting changes for 'PowerFill4 :: Continuous' : Error collecting changes for VCS root 'clearcase: /view/powerfill4_merge_view/vobs/FO_FOX/fo_fx_fox/appl/java/java-projects/common-pricing' #17
jetbrains.buildServer.vcs.VcsException: Process cleartool lshistory -all -since 08-October-2009.11:37:35 -fmt %u#--#%Nd#--#%En#--#%m#--#%Vn#--#%o#--#%e#--#%Nc#--#%[activity]p###----###\n /view/powerfill4_merge_view/vobs/FO_FOX/fo_fx_fox/appl/java/java-projects/common-pricing returns -1

Executing this lshistory command in the shell returns way too much including entries that are not part of the path, I guess it's trying to inspect the whole vob.
If I use the -r option instead of -all, it seems to behave much better (btw, we are also trying out Hudson, which uses lshistory -r , and that works fine).

I believe it is related to a bug that was previously rejected: TW-3797.

Is this a known issue? Any suggestions on how to work around it?


Comment actions Permalink


The question is still relevant? If yes please leave a comment or create a separate thread.

Kind regards,

Comment actions Permalink

Hi Marina,

I work at the same place as Denis. He has since left and I recently found this message. I have taken over responsibility of managing our TC instance. We used the work around described here:

We've used it for TC4 & TC5. I'm now installing TC6. Do you know if this problem has been fixed in the latest version of TC?

Thanks for your help,


Comment actions Permalink

Hello Paul,

There is issue regarding this problem Please watch/vote for it.
For now, the workaround described in comments to this issue.


Please sign in to leave a comment.