I do not agree with a single tool as idea. The first requirement would be getting into the related artifacts/objects properties. For the SAS tooling (SDW installation stage and all imbedded third party components as of VMfabic) it is better to stick to RPM Package Manager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as that is the standard tooling for that environment. A more correct folder structure according to common Linux/Unix guidelines should also be done. At the Microsoftlevel using MSI packages with SCCM System Center Configuration Manager - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia supporting bubbles with the related instructions as that is the standard for a Windows desktop environment. There are two of them now with 9.4, but guessing they are not complete. For the java desktop clients a copy deploy is sufficient and with that approach a lot of headaches on Desktop management processes could be avoided. Not being aligned with processes and tools at the OS level is the issue that should be solved. For SAS specific configuration there is mess on al kind type of files databases records and relations. The well known tools for release management as docker nolio rational endevor or whatever only are applicable to OS file types that are promotable not the ones that are unique to an dedicated environment. Within the SAS metadata based there are objects artifacts that are part of the security management (not promotable). Ones with dedicated names to an machine or local physical names or ... )all not promotable) . Than some type should be promoted (defined for release management) others not (eg ad-hoc). To solve this a well defined metadatafolder structure should be in place. This misalignment is the one causing all trouble when going for a -AAS approach. The way of configuration (appservers, themes etc) could be improved by sas. That well defined folderstructure getting it architecture is the real work. No the work is not the tooling to manage those. When this is the case I am convinced that is signal that folder (metadata) architecture has failed. Solving that should be done not finding new tools too hide that failure/mistake. The whole metadata approach is nice but complicated. I realize it is the same approach as the IDD with IDMS a long time ago. It was difficult to get used with that for me, by now I am used to those concepts may be a unique situation. All the questions on "which version?" are also confusing. The origin is release management and not version management. By the way reviewing docker is an alternative on the virtual machines. An applicaton in that context are the tools like an Oracle DBMS that is what UNix nerds are indicating as the "application". That part however is infrastructure to the business. Just having a RDBMS is not giving you anything at the businesss level.
... View more