When the TFS server is down and developers work offline, when the server comes back up will it be business as usual even though they made local changes?
Will it just be a pending change at that point?
When you go offline you can carry on working on your files. When you go back online it will check to see if anyone has checked in/out the files that you have been working on.
If none of them have changed, it will check them out for you and you carry on as normal.
If someone has checked in/out then you will have to attempt to merge the files either at that point or on check-in. Sometimes this will auto-merge, others you'll have to do it yourself.
How big a problem this is depends on how many overlapping files are going to be edited. Merging can be a pain, so I'd try to keep that server offline for a short time if possible. If you're using them, avoid changing auto-generated content, such as a Linq2Sql .dbml file as these can be a nightmare to merge.
Related
Thinking about using Team Foundation Server with VS2012 or VS2013. Does TFS track every single local change? For example. If I save a file 10 times locally even though I don't check in, will every one of those local saves be checked in on the TFS server so anyone on the team can see? Of does it just send to the server the latest saved version of the file when you check in? I'm not looking for it to do this because it wouldn't seem to make sense unless a manager wanted to track your hours or something.
MSDN describes the checkin process over here. It is stated there, that...
... all the included file changes from your workspace along with the comment, check-in notes, and links to related work items are stored on the server as a single changeset on your server.
That means that only the last version of your changes made locally will make it into the changeset, onto the server and to your coworkers. You can save as often as you want beforehand, the server won't notice.
Short answer: No.
Longer answer:
I can't think of any SCM that works that way.
Here's how it works, with pretty much any version control system (the terminology will differ from SCM to SCM, but the concepts are the same):
You start modifying a file.
You change the file as much as you want. When you're done, you commit it/check it in.
The contents of the file at that point in time are what's stored in the SCM. No intervening changes are stored.
I pressed Alt-E which I mistakenly thought was Merge Changes In Merge Tool, however, that was actually Keep Local Version. Is there a way to go back? Is there a way to find out what was merged, as in what file? Ugh! :(
I have completely stopped working in case I erase something of importance.
I'm using MSVS 2013 Professional.
Here's another possible approach.
If you know what version of the code you started with before you started making your current batch of changes, you can grab a copy of your local workspace files. Then Undo all your Pending Changes. Then delete all the files in your local workspace (in Windows explorer). Then do a Get Specific Version to get back the old version of the files from where you started, then copy-paste in your updated files from your backup copy. Then do a Get Latest. This should retrigger the Merge process.
I don't know a great answer to this problem, but I do know one thing you can do (I hope you don't have a massive amount of pending changes, or this will get tedious).
The problem is that TFS thinks you have now merged the server changes (other devs changes) into your workspace, even though you told it to basically toss them. If you try to check-in now it will blow away other developers changes in TFS.
What you can do is go through each file in your pending changes window, and do a Compare With Latest Version. This will show you the differences between your local file, and the file in TFS. You will notice two types of differences:
the changes you made which you can just skip past.
Changes that other devs made and are on the server, these differences will show up as though you have deleted/undone that code locally
For the changes that other devs made, you will have to manually reapply them in your local workspace before you check-in.
Currently I am working on a project that uses TFS as source control. I am in the middle of implementing a piece of functionality, but am blocked by work that needs to be done by outside resources. Since the functionality is not fully complete, I can't check in the changes without breaking the build. So instead of waiting a couple days while the blocking work is finished, I want to work on some defects.
To do this work in isolation from my other changes, I am working the defects in a second workspace I just created.
After using a second workspace to isolate my changes, a coworker asked me why I didn't just shelve my changes. After doing some reading on shelving, it looks like this is preferred solution to situations like mine. My question is what situations, if any, would you create multiple workspaces and what situations should you use shelving? There are some posts about shelving, but I don't see very much on the subject of workspaces.
By the way, I got the idea for creating a second workspace here.
A new branch would probably be the best way to go. But, to answer your question, one of the key differences between shelving and just using a differnet workspace is that when you shelve, you push your code back to TFS, so it is backed up. Whatever is in your workspace is just what you have on your machine -- if you lose it, it's gone.
We use branching a lot in my shop, and as a result, I haven't seen many uses for shelving.
However, I have found one case where it has been very useful to me:
I often bounce between 2 different development machines (one at the office, one at home, connected via VPN). If I am working on something, and I want to transfer it from home to work, or vice-versa, I often use shelving. I can shelve it from one machine and un-shelve it from the other. I do this when I am in the middle of a change, and checking in would break the build or otherwise interrupt other developers.
You are talking about two completely different concepts here. When you shelve code, you are saving it to TFS, but not checking it in to any particular branch. Creating a different workspace just sets up a new local folder on your development machines and saves the files in your branch there. When you do a check-in, you still could have conflicts.
Why not create a new branch of your code. You can work on that branch and check in without stepping on anyone else's changes, because you are checking in to your own branch of the code. Then, when you have completed your changes, and others have completed their's on the main branch, you can merge your changes into the main branch.
Shelving is the ideal option. Shelving allows you to make changes en masse in TFS outside the regular build, and retrieve them later by name. Multiple workspaces is not a solution for what you're doing. Multiple workspaces are good if you're maintaining different versions of a product and need to work on them, e.g. let's say you have a 4.0 and a 5.0 product and need to apply a security fix to both versions. Shelving is great when you want to make changes but not commit them immediately.
I hope this qualifies as programming related since it involves how to structure a project.
Because I've always used the web site model with VS.net I never had solution and project files and putting everything into source control worked great. I knew that everything I had in my web site directory was all I needed for the web site.
Now I'm using asp.net MVC and it only has a project model so now I have these solution and project files. If I work on it alone it's fine but once other people start to add/delete files from the project our solution file gets messed up and people end up having to grab the latest solution file, see what got changed and then add back/remove their files and check in the solution file again. It's become sort of a problem because sometimes people don't realize the solution file was changed, they make other changes and then when they check in everything other people do an update on their files they find that their files are gone from the project (although still physically on disk).
Is this normal? Is there a way to structure a project so that we don't need to check in solution and project files?
Your developers are not using TFS correctly. You should have multiple check-outs turned on, and everyone needs to be careful to merge their changes correctly when checking in. TFS will prompt you to do this, and accepting the defaults is nearly always the right thing to do.
It's not uncommon to have one or two developers who never get it, and you might have to help them now and then. But every programmer who works on a team needs to learn how to use source control tools correctly. If they can't manage that, they shouldn't be writing software.
[edit] It occurs to me that you might run into these problems if you check in the *.sln file directly, rather than choosing to "Add Solution to Source Control".
I don't think it's normal - what are you using for source control? It sounds like developers aren't respecting changes that others a making - checking in without merging first.
I know that early on in a project, when lots of files are being added & deleted, it can be a problem to keep up - you need to check out the project file, add your files, then check in the new file & project so other developers can also update it. You'll probably have multiple project files in a solution - perhaps one interim solution would be to have one "holding" project for each developer, then clean them up periodically - though these types of temporary fixes do have a tendency to become permanent.
I don't know of a way to set up a project file that's not in source control, though I suppose you could create a script that would generate them.
Having been through this, the key is respect & good communication between the developers.
This tends to happen with TFS multiple check outs. It can be hard to grasp coming from VSS to TFS as VSS allowed one person to check a file out at one time. Auto-merge should work most of the time for you but a couple of rules should ease the pain:
Check in early and often (if you add remove or rename a file check it in straight away even if it is a blank holder)
Before you check in do a get latest, this will ask you to resolve conflicts locally
Try to get continuous integration set up so that developers always know the state of the buidl and whether it is OK to check in\out.
We had a bit fo pain at the start of our current project but it soon settled down when we followed the rules above.
Personally, I think making changes to project and solution files requires discipline and clear (well understood) rules throughout your development team. These files (.sln, .*proj) are the bottlenecks of your project, and any errors or inconsistencies can cost you in team downtime. Changes need to be well thought out, planned and then executed.
They must be secured by source control (which you're already using, excellent) and your team members should work on the basis of only making the changes they need, and not leaving project or solution files checked out for an extended period.
If you are allowing multiple (shared) checkouts, this could become problematic in terms of overwriting another user's changes. Depending on your source control mechanism, people may be required to manually merge changes. Personally, I'd ask people to negotiate their project/solution changes with each other over merging (this can't always be achieved).
A third option if you are using TFS is the shelve feature. If someone needs to make changes locally, they can shelve the changes and merge later.
Lastly, another strategy is to try to architect your solution to be as modularized as possible - so people are distributed, working on separate projects and do not (ideally) have to overlap on too many common areas.
I'm not sure if you are using TFS, as people have mentioned, but if you are (or if you are using source control with similar capabilities) you can set it such that sln and csproj files are exclusive lockouts and are not able to be merged.
We have done this with quite large teams and while it causes some initial issues as people get used to it in the long run it has resolved many issues that were previously causing problems. Essentially you trade longer term merge issues/complexity for short term compile/checkin issues which we have found to be a good trade off.
Once you have set it to forced exclusive checkout and no merge you then get your dev teams used to the fact they should keep locks on the sln and proj files for as shorter time as possible.
Always check them in.
Always check out latest (merge if possible), make sure your change is there, before checking in a new version.
If your source control doesn't require a special action to check in from an old version, GET A DIFFERENT SOURCE CONTROL.
I just wonder what the best approach is to have multiple users work on a Project in Visual Studio 2005 Professional.
We got a Solution with multiple Class Libraries, but when everyone opens the solution, we keep getting the "X was modified, Reload/Discard?" prompt all the time. Just opening one project is an obvious alternative, but I find it harder to use as you can't just see some of the other classes in other projects that way.
Are there any Guidelines for Team Development with VS2005 Pro?
Edit: Thanks. The current environment is a bit limited in the sense there is only 1 PC with RDP Connection, but that will change in the future. Marking the first answer as Accepted, but they are all good :)
What you need is source control.
You should definitely not open the same files over the network on multiple machines. For one thing, Visual Studio has safeguards in place to prevent you from modifying certain files during a build, but it has none of that that will prevent others from modifying the same files over the network.
By setting up source control, each developer will have a separate copy of the files locally on his or her developer machine, and periodically communicate with the source control system to check in/commit changes. After that, other developers can ask for the latest updates when they're ready to retrieve them.
Use source control to keep a central repository of all your code. Then each user checks out their own copy of the source code and works locally. Then submits only the code that changed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Version_control
A number of people have recommended using source control and I totally agree. However you also need do the following.
Exclude your personal options files from the repository (eg your .suo files)
Exclude your App.config files from the repository. - Not entirely but you need to have a Template.App.config. You commit that instead, and only copy your App.config into the Template.App.config when you make structural changes. That was each user has their own individual config for testing.
There are probably some other files worth excluding (obj directories and so forth) but thats all I can think of right now.
Peter
This might sound snide, but if you're opening up the solution from a shared location then you're doing something wrong. If that's the case then you should start using source control (something like Subversion) and have everyone check out a copy of the project to work on.
However if you're already using source control, then it might be a symptom of having the wrong things checked in. I find that you only need the sln, and the vcproj under source control.
Otherwise I don't know...
You should definitely, definitely be working with source control!
This will help stop the collisions that are occurring. Also, if you are making changes to the shared projects this often that it is a problem, then also ensure that all code is tested before getting checked in (otherwise they may bust someone else's build), but make sure they check in often (or time gained from not dealing with prompts will be lost in merging conflicts) :)