I just started at a new company which uses VSS and has "Allow Multiple Checkouts" turned off. I can see that it is going to quickly become a problem getting things done here. Getting "Allow Multiple Checkouts" enabled is probably not an option.
Is there a way for me to edit the file anyway and then merge my changes (either using VSS or another tool) when the file becomes available?
Sure, just make the file writeable (hold the shift key down when clicking the get button to get the dialog...)
Then try not to break anything when you merge your changes.
No shop I have ever worked in allows multiple checkouts because the merging process is so dangerous.
Basically, nothing prevents you from editing the files. Usually these filese are marked read-only, but you can surely override that.
But better be very careful, because VSS would allow you to easily overwrite anyone else's changes.
There is an option in VSS Studio to make the files read-only unless you have them checked out. You might consider turning it off (though I wouldn't recommend that).
I believe, there's also an option in Visual Studio to allow editing read-only files. That is, if you try to edit an r/o file, Visual Studio will prompt you to make it writable. This is probably better, since you will not change the file accidentally.
Even better, migrate from VSS to SVN or another modern source control system.
VSS has lots of potential problems with stability, performance and so on.
Related
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!
If one chooses to "prevent other users from checking out and checking in" from Team Foundation Server:
Can anyone reach the code?
Is there any way to work from another user's computer?
How about shelving?
I would interpret that sort of lock as meaning that someone is going to do something so destructive that it is in your interests to not have an edited copy when that happens. If you think it is a mistake, talk to the person who locked the file.
An option, if you really want to do this, is to remove the readonly attribute on the file yourself (in Windows Explorer or through a shell) and edit the file. That is a good way to cause yourself trouble, though, if the file is going to be changed substantially by the person that locked it. Also, you will need to later mark it as checked out in TFS to actually check it in.
I do not think you will be able to shelve the file (unless you follow the option below) since you will not be able to check it out for edit.
One last option is that you could branch the file, work on the branch, and then merge it back in later. Once again, though, that may be difficult if the edits by the person locking the file are going to be extensive.
I'm not sure I understood all of your questions, but I'll give it a chance:
If by reach you mean, get latest version and read, yes they could. But they wouldn't be able to change the code while it's locked unless they circumvent Visual Studio and change the read-only attribute of the with the command-prompt, Windows Explorer etc.
Visual Studio and TFS 2010 introduces the concept of permissions on workspaces. A workspace now can be private (the old behavior), public limited or public. Using a public workspace, on could edit the files in the workspace of another person. See tf workspace /permission for more information.
You can shelve anything that is in your workspace regardless of locks on anybody's workspaces.
Here is a link to the permission values for TFS
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms252587.aspx
This should answer your questions
At work I just started using Subversion with AnkhSVN instead of Visual Source Safe. I managed to integrate it well enough but it doesn't seem the same.
Using VSS the following would happen:
A user check out a file by right clicking and selecting "check out" or by editing it. If another user tried to modify the same file he would get an error. No 2 users could edit the same file at the same time. No fancy merging. No conflicts and no conflict resolutions.
I understand the the philosophy behind Subversion is different but is there any way that this behavior described above could be duplicated with Subversion?
There is an option in AnkhSVN called "Automatically lock files on change..." but even if I activate this option when I edit a file it never gets automatically locked.
Even if this option worked the other users wouldn't see the lock until they commited the file. They wouldn't get an error when they tried to edit it like they would in Visual Source Safe.
So basically: can Visual Source Safe's behavior be duplicated using Subversion and AnkhSVN?
The point of using subversion over source safe is that you don't have exclusive lock and many people can work on the same file.
You are loosing quite a lot of the benefits of SVN if you start using it with exclusive locks on files.
The idea is that you fix conflicts during merges of code.
See this SO question and answers for a bit of a discussion on the issues (Revision control locking: Is the jury still out?).
The Agent SVN is a MS-SCCI plugin (just like VSS) for Subversion so it integrates with Visual Studio just like VSS.
It also has a Lock on check out option and with that feature on it does feel a lot like VSS.
You need to set svn:needs-lock subversion properties on the files that you want to explicitly lock. It's really only recommended for files that cannot be easily merged, like (most) binary files and not on text/code files. Usually text/code files merge great automatically, and when they don't conflicts are usually easy to solve.
AnkhSVN will ask you to take lock the file (same as checkout in VSS) when you attempt to edit it when the svn:needs-lock property is set. If you enable the "Automatically lock files" feature, the lock dialog is suppressed, and you will take a lock on the file without a dialog showing up.
Svnbook explains the differences between a lock-modify-unlock and copy-modify-merge, and the svn:needs-lock behavior is also described
I'm using Visual Studio 6.0 and Visual Basic 6.0.
I have them integrated but when I check out a Project and then try to edit a module in that project it's locked and I have to manually right-click on it and do a Check Out to unlock it.
I thought there was a way to have VSS automatically check out the file for editing.
Any suggestions?
I agree with kris here. Now I know that a bunch of folks saying your "software stinks" doesn't really answer your question. But there is a world of difference between a check out style source control and a file locking system like Source safe. The general consensus is that Check out systems are far superior.
With check out, what you do is you check out the project from your repository. All the files are editable. You work on your project as normally. Then before you checkin you do another update. If anybody else in your team did a update the software will automatically merge in the changes into your code. You will have a chance to review the merges and resolve any conflicts. After the update you can then check in your changes which everyone else can retrieve.
The big scary part is the merging part. Back when CVS and subversion where just command line tools it was a little scary as it was a pain to retrieve what happened with the merging. But with today's tools like Tortoise is all visual. In the last couple of years I can't think of any instance where a automatic merge failed. Any conflicts (basically two people edit the same line of code) are display right here for you to resolve.
Subversion
Tortoise SVN
There is an option in SourceSafe under the "Local Files" tab labeled "Use read-only flag for files that are not checked out". By default this option is selected, but if you unselect it, you will be able to edit any file in the project without checking it out.
Once you uncheck the option, you can get the latest version of a project to remove the read-only flag from all the files.
When you check out a file, you will be warned that there is a writable copy of the file in your working folder, at which time you can replace it with the version in the SourceSafe database.
I never figured out a way to do this. It was always a huge pain. Sorry for posting a negative answer, but I figured that you might want to know that you aren't alone in hating this, but that there wasn't an immediate and obvious answer. I'll be following this question along with you in case someone out there does know of a solution...
I don't think it is possible to do this (at least it wasn't when we used VSS eight years ago), but while you are experiencing the pain of a check out styled source control, run - don't walk, to some real, non-locking style source control solution. SVN, CVS, Git, Mecruial, anything that doesn't lock files, and doesn't leave your source in a proprietary file sytem. We switched to CVS eight years ago because we lost all of our source history (the code was checkout out so it was retrievable), due to a VSS glitch. Best thing we ever did, made collaboration ten times easier. Now CVS isn't the best solution (it was the most reasonable solution for windows back then), but anything is better than VSS.
Best solution I found was to check out all the files. Took a bit of poking around to figure out how to do that. Here's how:
How to check out all VB6 Project files from VSS?
when I check out a Project and then
try to edit a module in that project
it's locked and I have to manually
right-click on it and do a Check Out
to unlock it
Like it or not, it works that way by design i.e. you can check out all the files but you have to explicitly choose to do so, rather than being the default option. I guess that's because checking out all modules (class modules, forms, usercontrols, etc) locks out all other users from the entire project, which is normally undesirable in a team collaboration environment.
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) :)