I want to use a versioning system to back up and track my changes but I'm too lazy to check out/check in, merge, commit, etc. I don't want to branch, fork or anything else. I just want to be able to see what files have changes and what my Main() looked like last week.
So I'm looking for an application that will simply take my Visual Studio projects folder and back it up in such a way that all prior versions of the files are preserved so I can not only have a backup, but I can easily see how the file looked at some point in the past without me having to explicitly put it in a repository, update/commit/merge/etc.
Basically what I'm looking for is dropbox's functionality but on my local machine and without the 30 day limitation of prior versions.
Does such an application exist?
As AlexC stated, I highly doubt that the little bit of work you save by not using a version control system explicitly is worth the drawbacks, but anyway:
Simplest idea: Just write a wrapper script that checks out the HEAD of your repository, starts Visual Studio and commits everything to version control after you close it.
Alternatively, just trigger commits every hour. With most VCSes, non-modified files won't show up in the listing of modified files.
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.
Recently switched jobs and with it switched source control from TFS to SVN, which is new to me.
In TFS there was an option to disable automatic checkout of files when you started typing in them. It's enabled by default and a lot of users like this behaviour, but I prefer to know for certain what's being changed before committing. A personal thing.
VisualSVN auto-checkouts by default. Is there an similar option to turn it off? I can't seem to find out in the settings.
"Automatic checkout" term in SVN and in TFS worlds has different meanings, as far as I see.
In Subversion, checkout relates to svn checkout operation which gets a working copy from a repository. In TFS it looks like the term somehow relates to automatic locking mechanism.
If you want a file to be locked automatically when you start modifying it in Visual Studio (with VisualSVN extension installed), see the KB article "Lock-Modify-Unlock Model with VisualSVN". I also suggest reading the SVNBook chapter "Locking".
Generally speaking, you can set svn:needs-lock property on files. The property instructs client which files must be locked before editing. After applying svn:need-lock to a file the file gets read-only attribute. Before editing the file must be explicitly locked by the user. After committing the lock is released by default.
Short answer: I don;t think you can do this without becoming very unpopular.
I think you should read up on the SVN redbook's description of how SVN works, especially the versioning models
In your environment, everyone wants to be able to modify any file locally and then send their changes to the server, merging changes with colleague's changes if necessary. This approach works well if 2 people are not changing the same files all the time, which is typical of most dev shops.
The old TFS/VSS model of checkout a file to work on it is pretty obsolete today - the more 'optimistic' approach where you assume you have exclusive access is much more productive. (as usual its easier to ask forgiveness if it goes wrong than ask permission every time)
Your main problem is that you cannot mix these models - if your colleagues are using the merge model, then you have to as well. You cannot lock a file and expect them to still be able to change any file anytime.
Now, there are tricks you can use to prevent yourself from modifying files you never meant to - I'm not sure of VisualSVN but TortoiseSVN (awesome tool) can run client hooks - ie you can write a program to run on every checkout, and that program can be as simple as setting every file's read-only flag. Whether this is god enough for you is another matter.
Personally, I would get used to the idea of change whatever you like whenever. If you accidentally edit a file, you can see the change indicator (AnkhSVN turns the file icon orange for changed files), and its easy to 'svn revert' changes you didn't want to make. Also SVN lets you see diffs really easily, especially on commit - double click the files in the commit dialog. The productivity gains from being able to work without the tools getting in your way (as I found with TFS continually pinging at me as I tried to edit a file) are huge. The SVN tools are really good to let you "ask forgiveness" so you don't need to run in the crappy old TFS way now you've upgraded to something better.
The other advantage is that this applies to files that are not in a Visual Studio project, if you've ever had a project file that was edited outside VS (eg a generated WCF client stub) then you will appreciate how SVN works - never again will you do a full commit and find that TFS has conveniently decided that your changed file wasn't changed and so didn't need to be committed!
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.
We have multiple developers working on the same code base. We also are trying to use SourceSafe (6.0)
When one developer makes code changes to their local copy, we note it in a list of changed objects for this release.
When it's time to compile our next release, we open the "master" copy, update all the changes from SourceSafe to the master copy, then compile.
At this point, all the other developers code is now out of sync with the master copy, and we need to get all the changes pushed downhill to all the developers local copies, so we're all looking at the same version of source at the start of a new release cycle.
Is there a way to have SourceSafe update the local copies with the latest changes, or do we need to do it manually basaed on the list of changed objects (which is what we're doing now...) Please don't tell me to use "Get Latest Version". It only works on one file at a time, and is the process we're using now anyway.
I believe your process is simply incorrect. When your devs get in, just have everyone Get Latest. When your developers want to make a change, have them check out the file. This way, it's one dev working on a single file at a time.
If you want multiple people working on the same file, I'd switch to subversion (there is a vb plugin for it).
There is a reason why the SCC tools work the way they do - it's been tried and tested over the last 20 years.
Like many programmers, I'm prone to periodic fits of "inspiration" wherein I will suddenly See The Light and perform major surgery on my code. Typically, this works out well, but there are times when I discover later that — due to lack of sleep/caffeine or simply an imperfect understanding of the problem — I've done something very foolish.
When this happens, the next step is do reverse the damage. Most easily, this means the undo stack in my editor… unless I closed the file at some point. Version control is next, but if I made changes between my most recent commit (I habitually don't commit code which breaks the build) and the moment of inspiration, they are lost. It wasn't in the repository, so the code never existed.
I'd like set up my work environment in such a way that I needn't worry about this, but I've never come up with a completely satisfactory solution. Ideally:
A new, recoverable version would be created every time I save a file.
Those "auto-saved" versions won't clutter the main repository. (The vast majority of them would be completely useless; I hit Ctrl-S several times a minute.)
The "auto-saved" versions must reside locally so that I can browse through them very quickly. A repository with a 3-second turnaround simply won't do when trying to scan quickly through hundreds of revisions.
Options I've considered:
Just commit to the main repository before making a big change, even if the code may be broken. Cons: when "inspired", I generally don't have the presence of mind for this; breaks the build.
A locally-hosted Subversion repository with auto-versioning enabled, mounted as a "Web Folder". Cons: doesn't play well with working copies of other repositories; mounting proper WebDAV folders in Windows is painful at best.
As with the previous method, but using a branch in the main repository instead and merging to trunk whenever I would normally manually commit. Cons: not all hosted repositories can have auto-versioning enabled; doesn't meet points 2 and 3 above; can't safely reverse-merge from trunk to branch.
Switch to a DVCS and "combine" all my little commits when pushing. Cons: I don't know the first thing about DVCSes; sometimes Subversion is the only tool available; I don't know how to meet point 1 above.
Store working copy on a versioned file system. Cons: do these exist for Windows? If so, Google has failed to show me the way.
Does anyone know of a tool or combination of tools that will let me get what I want? Or have I set myself up with contradictory requirements? (Which I rather strongly suspect.)
Update: After more closely examining the tools I already use (sigh), it turns out that my text editor has a very nice multi-backup feature which meets my needs almost perfectly. It not only has an option for storing all backups in a "hidden" folder (which can then be added to global ignores for VCSes), but allows browsing and even diffing against backups right in the editor.
Problem solved. Thanks for the advice, folks!
Distributed Version Control. (mercurial, git, etc...)
The gist of the story is that there are no checkouts, only clones of a repository.
Your commits are visible only to you until you push it back into the main branch.
Want to do radical experimental change? Clone the repository, do tons of commits on your computer. If it works out, push it back; if not, then just rollback or trash the repo.
Most editors store the last version of your file before the save to a backup file. You could customize that process to append a revision number instead of the normal tilde. You'd then have a copy of the file every time you saved. If that would eat up too much disk space, you could opt for creating diffs for each change and customizing your editor to sequentially apply patches until you get to the revision you want.
if you use Windows Vista, 7 or Windows Server 2003 or newer you could use Shadow Copy. Basically the properties window for your files will have a new tab 'previous version' that keeps track of the previous version of the file.
the service should automatically generate the snapshot, but just to be safe you can run the following command right after your moment of "inspiration"
'vssadmin create shadow /for=c:\My Project\'
it has defiantly saved my ass quite a few times.
Shadow Copy
I think it is time to switch editors. Emacs has a variable version-control, which determines whether Emacs will automatically create multiple backups for a file when saving it, naming them foo.~1~, foo.~2~ etc. Additional variables determine how many backup copies to keep.