I am programming in Visual Studio 2010, using TortiseSVN and VisualSVN as my client to connect to SVN repositories.
I am having a bit of a frequent problem though with the whole SVN thing in general. One thing that keeps cropping up is that if I make changes to files - namely filenames, or move them to new folders, etc, I end up getting all kinds of conflicts with the repository and it just causes all sorts of strange errors.
I understand the importance of version control and check-in/check-out access like this, but what do most of you do to deal with this kind of thing? I mean, I've tried doing the whole 'Remove from Subversion', change my file, then 'Add to Subversion' thing, and it just doesn't seem to do the job very well. This is especially frustrating when working on web projects where filenames can change very frequently as a project evolves and becomes multifaceted.
Are there any standard ways to deal with this kind of thing, or is it just one of the flaws of SVN in general?
First I must admit that over the last years I stepped in every pitfall SVN offers.
But in 99% it was my fault.
Common mistakes are:
Renaming a file and only changing lowercase.txt to UPPERCASE.txt (Windows only, to avoid this change the name to UPPERCASE1.txt first and than to rename to UPPERCASE.txt)
Using the explorer for Rename / Delete / Move operations (better use Tortoises Build-In methods
Cross Merge related conflicts
and some more I can't remember at the moment.
I haven't used visualsvn yet, but I think it is build on top of Tortoise. If you use Visual Studio, I would recommend ankhsvn http://ankhsvn.open.collab.net/ which has a great integration into visual studio and catches most mistakes you can make (all from within the IDE).
Another tip: don't try to move/delete/rename a whole bunch of files AND directories in one commit. There is at least a couple of bugs in subversion server and client v1.6 (where both Ankhsvn and tortoise depend on) that screw up at least your working copy. A multiple commit approach will work (so first rename, commit, then move one folder, commit, etc).
Subversion processes file name changes as a delete and an add, which can be somewhat problematic. It's just an inherent limitation of Subversion and is a part of why some of us have switched to using different version control systems.
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!
I've got a large Visual Studio solution (dozens of projects; thousands of files) that I don't have the option of reorganizing. I'm troubleshooting a problem and need to switch back and forth between two versions of several files in the solution. Currently the diff between those files are in branch_a and branch_b. As I troubleshoot I may need to commit on either branch, but the changes in either branch won't be in the files I'm concerned about switching back and forth between.
Is there a well-known or straightforward workflow or set of git commands that would allow me to flip back and forth between the two versions of just those couple of files?
If it matters, what I'm switching back and forth between are two versions of a dll of a third party library that are referenced in 3 of the dozens of projects - I'm hoping to avoid going into each project, removing library_a.dll and adding library_b.dll and then the reverse on those projects, so the files that are actually being switched are the .proj files with the differing references.
Obviously (or perhaps not so) non-git solutions to the same problem are also welcome, but since git is tracking the files that seemed like an obvious choice.
We are using Tortoise svn as we have some issue we are going to move to VSS. Is Visual source safe comes along with VS2010 or should we buy separately and install. When we called and asked they said to select VSS from Tools->options->Sourcecontrol. If I do so I am getting some error as
As someone already answered on a comment, VSS does not come with VS2010.
In any case, I would strongly recommend against using VSS as your source control. It is several generations old technology as source control systems go.
It has serious drawbacks for the whole development process compared to the modern competition and should be generally avoided.
I have no idea what problems you have with SVN, but I would bet they are more of the organizational sort than technical.
From your comment I can infer that you expected SVN to give you same type of pessimistic locking workflow you had coming from VSS, but with SVN and other more modern tools, you have to change your expectations and workflow to a more natural parallel development.
In SVN you do not need to keep track of who changes what, as everyone can check out and modify every source file in the source tree and in most cases unless the developers change same lines in a same file simultaneously, the changes get merged together without any manual intervention whatsoever.
Instead of acquiring exclusive locks to a source file to modify it, you synchronize your local working copy before commiting it back to the repository and resolve any conflicts locally. This way nobody needs to keep track of who is working on what, just remember to update the working copy and resolve any odd conflicts before a commit.
Visual merge tools hep here tremendously.
Once you've converted, you'll love it and never want to go back.
If SVN does not work for you, there is a commercial tool called Vault by nice guys at SourceGear specifically designed as a replacement to VSS.
In case you feel especially adventurous and liberalized from the VSS, you might also take a look at the Veracity by same guys - a distributed version management tool much like the popular Git and Mercurial.
VSS does NOT come with VS2010 but you may still use it as a form of source control...although this is highly advised against.
I am working on a large source base (approx 15K files) decomposed into about 25 projects. I want to keep the source in perforce (and am evaluating perforce to that end) but due to complications in the setup it isn't possible for me to keep the visual studio projects in source control, I know in theory the answer to this is to check the projects in, but that isn't feasible (we would end up with projects for several versions of VS checked in, and additionally several variants of each of these, instead they are generated automatically and this setup works very well).
Is there a way to get VS to checkout files for editing as it goes without adding the project to perforce, to avoid the user having to go to the perforce client and manually check out each file for editing as they go? Alternatively (and even better) is there a way to get VS to recognise that the files in a project are under source control, without having to add the project to source control also?
I know we could also take the tack of having every user check out for editing all files they might potentially want to edit ahead of time, then revert unmodified files before submitting their changes, is there a performance penalty in perforce in taking this approach?
In your case, I'd suggest not using the visual studio integration for Perforce.
You can either add Perforce commands to the Tools Menu, or try Nifty Perforce from Google:
http://code.google.com/p/niftyplugins/
One option is to use Perforce as if you were disconnected from the server and reconcile your changes later, rather than telling Perforce everything you do before you do it. (This is roughly equivalent to the workflow in CVS or Subversion.) You would synchronize your working copy, go off and develop, and then ask Perforce to figure out what you did while it wasn't watching.
Perforce has a nice document describing the process: Working Disconnected From The Perforce Server
One thing the document doesn't mention is the allwrite clientspec attribute, which marks all files in your working directory as writable instead of only the files you have checked out.
For the sake of completeness: There is a new tool for your wish called P4VS. I like it better that P4SCC which never worked for me as I wanted.
We use Subversion as our source control system and store the VisualStudio project files (vcproj) in the source control system as is normal I think. With Subversion we don't use any form of file locking, so if two developers are working on the same project at the same time and both add files to the project, or change settings, the second one to commit has to merge the changes.
How do you merge these changes?
The vcproj files are just text files so it is possible to edit them by hand but they are not very amenable to hand editing, especially by junior developers.
The ways I can think of are
Get the latest version from svn and re-add all local changes manually
Edit the file by hand to resolve any conflicts from an automatic merge
Implement some form of locking scheme to prevent simultaneous changes
Have an agreement between developers so they do not make simultaneous changes
Currently we are using the first option of re-adding all changes manually but this is time consuming and I was wondering if there is a better way.
With source files the automatic merge feature works most of the time and we don't get many conflicts.
I've found that option 2 (edit the files by hand) generally works fairly well, as long as you're using a good diff tool (I use WinMerge). The main problem I've run into is that Visual Studio will sometimes reorder the file. But, if you have a good diff/merge tool then it should be able to differentiate between changed content and moved content. That can help a lot.
You might find Project: Merge or Tools for SLN file useful
This is a tough problem and I think a weakness in the Visual Studio architecture. The way we found round it was to not have the proj files in source control at all and to have a build script that handled the configuration settings.
The alternative was very messy and we could not guarantee consistent builds or environments between developers. This led to a huge number of downstream integration problems and eventually we took the draconian step of removing the project files from source control.
The developers environments could still become misaligned but it showed up when they tried to build things themselves.
Using TFS here, but I don't think it makes a difference.
We also don't lock, and sometimes have to deal with merging project files. I've never found it to be that complex or much of an issue. Rarely do we ever experience issues that can't be merged automatically, and the manual merge process is pretty much trivial.
There's only one caveat to this: Check in often! If you make major changes to the project structure and don't check them in immediately those changes can start compounding the complexity of later merges. If I make a major change to the structure of a project, I usually give everybody a heads up. I'll ask them all to check in their current work, and then take care of the merge myself.
I found this recently: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/macros/vcproj_formatter.aspx
If you run this tool on a vcproj file and on a modified version of it then you can merge them together easily with your favorite text merge tool, and in addition the result is a more compact pretty vcproj file.
Options 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive - if the developer is junior level, let them use option 1 (re-get the project file and re-do the changes) if that's more comfortable for them. For more senior developers, option 2 (merge using a merge tool) is perfectly fine.
I think this is a situation that currently has no magic bullet - sometimes merging is a pain.
We use a diff tool (WinMerge) to merge changes. The project files are (for the most part) really straight-forward XML. The key here, though, is that there never should be any surprises when merging, because good communication is part of the bed-rock of effective source control.
Simultaneous changes to the project are perfectly fine as long as people communicate.