First of all, I am not sure if StackOverflow is the place to ask this (I already considered Programmers StackExchange, but that also seemed a bit off). If this is not the right place, please help me move the question or suggest where I can ask it instead.
If you're using TFS, is there an effective way to do reviews like GitHub offers? In GitHub, you typically submit a pull request. This pull request then lets you see all the changes made in that whole pull request, making it easy for you to review (because you can just keep scrolling down).
Can the same be done in Visual Studio with TFS, or do I really have to see the changes for every file that has been changed manually? It just seems crazy.
I'm afraid there isn't a single overview. You do have the code request feature but that still shows a list of files.
Instead of using TFVC with Code Reviews, you can also use Git as the version control system. You can then use regular pull requests in the same way you would use GitHub.
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'm studying art, but decided to take a course in programming. We were recently given a github URL, cloning it produced an empty folder(except .git). We were instructed to submit a solution to homework as pull requests on that project.
I don't want to mess up such a simple task, so I'd appreciate an advice on how to do the pull request. One of the things that bothers me are what parts of my folders and files do I need to include. I have folders like _ReSharper.Classes and packages (from NuGet), how do I handle those?
This is a good starting point for understanding Pull Requests:
http://help.github.com/send-pull-requests/
Basically on Github, hit the fork button:
This will create your own clone of the repository. Commit your code in the new repo (if you're completely clueless with git, check out a getting started guide like this).
When you're done, hit the Pull Request button:
Enter an explaination of your changes and submit.
As per Alex's answer, first you fork the github repo to create your own copy, though it is still on github.
Second you should clone that copy onto your own PC/laptop so that you can work on it.
Once you have the clone locally you should create yourself a branch to work in - this keeps the master branch available for reference.
Also use branches when trying new things so that you can keep the 'mistakes' separate from the good stuff before merging (often simply 'fast forwarding').
At suitable intervals push your repo back to github as a backup - check up on whether it is public (relative to any course restrictions)
Here is my situation:
The project I'm working on right now
uses a version control system
(Microsoft Team Foundation) that's
hosted and managed remotely by the
customer. I am in charge of doing a
massive refactoring/bugfixing after
somebody who left a horrendous mess of
code behind. Due to several reasons
that I won't detail here* I cannot
commit to the version control my
incremental changes while I patch
things up; and there is no way I can
be given a separate branch there.
Here is my question:
I want a version control system that I can use locally. I can't just keep doing "zip source folder and backup it". I want a track of changes. I want commit messages. I want to see what I did and when and why in a couple of months. In a pinch, I'm tired to rely on VS 'undo' command and to leave comments myself tracking what I'm doing and how it was before.
Here is what I would do:
I'd install mercurial/git locally and start versioning my own directories.
Problem is, I am not sure this is the best way. Hints? Ideas? I am not familiar at all with either Visual Studio or Team Foundation and can't seem to find my way around with them (I don't know how things are 'named' so I don't know what I'm looking for). Is it possible, using such tools, to do what I have described?
*basically the customer doesn't necessarily have to know that our lead developer quit in anger and left the most horrendous code mess I've ever seen behind me; that at least 3 people 'tried to fix' his code in a rush to patch bugs; that this ended up in a single class with a 400+ long method including a single 'for' loop, at least 5 places where code is repeated-but-not-completely, unused logic, wrong comments, while(true) loops, and increasing the 'for' counter in the loop body to look-ahead into an array list. Basically, we hope the customer won't notice what's happening and if they do we can fix it when they whine.
The usual approach is to:
"git init" directly in the directory you want to manage locally
add a .gitignore in order to not add any VCS-specific data or directory
git add .gitignore and commit
git add .
commit
That way, you have a local repo you can then clone, make branches, patches, ...
(I do it for ClearCase views for instance)
A similar approach, with similar commands, is valid with Hg Mercurial of course.
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.
We're having a spirited discussion about this at my workplace. We're talking about user uploaded images for a bunch of products, not images needed to display the basic site. I say "no way" but I'm curious what others think.
Update: Just to clarify. These are customer supplied images for products that they are entering/modifying.
I agree with 'no way'.
Anything that may change on the site through day-to-day use, or is editable by whoever administers the website I consider to be 'content'. This includes uploaded files and database content, both of which are backed up separately. Nothing on the website that is in version control changes once it's been deployed. Easier that way.
Other ways of asking if something should be in version control:
Do the images change?
Are the changes related to anything else?
Can mistakes be made?
Is traceability wanted/needed?
If the rest of the site is version controlled, version control the images.
If the images are generated, version control the generator.
Presumably, what you are talking about is content that would be classified as user data, as opposed to project files. That stuff, while important, does not need versioning - that needs a plain old backup mechanism.
I recently added a new project into a fresh SVN repository, and every time I look at the 'uploads' folder I realise how stupid I was to include that in the initial commit.
It seems like what you're talking about is content that is in (or perhaps will be) in a database. If a customer is supplying you a list of products as well as the pictures of those products, then that should all come from a database. In this case, I wouldn't because your database should be backed up, but not in the VCS.
If it is not, and your web site is static, then I would only because it is "part of the site."
If you feel you must revision it, put these resources out of the path of the main repository somehow, and then give it a dedicated repository just for that content.
You don't want everyone who has to check out code getting a copy of every image when they checkout or update, its slow, and pointless, and having them in your primary tree will just have more headaches than you can Imagine.
/common_ancestor
/project_code/ # repository a
/resources_dir/ # repository b
If you have to use symlinks or web-server magic to make this happen, then do that, but whatever you do, DON'T put content like that in your main repository.
As far as backups vs revisioning go, revisioning it like this does give you a slight ease if you're using SVN as your distribution method as well, that way if a developer needs a copy of the images for testing purposes, its relatively easy to get a relatively up-to-date set of them.
If you aren't going to expose the versioning to the customers, then what would be the point?
The customers are already free to use version control on their own end, before they submit the files. You may want to encourage them to do so.