Anyone had any success getting SVN to merge Visual Studio project (.csproj) or solution (.sln) files that have been edited by two users? Example
User A checks out project
User B checks out same project
User A adds a file
User A commits changes
User B adds a file
User B commits changes
Seems to me that at step (6), svn, Tortoise, Ankh or whatever should detect a conflict and either merge the two project files automatically or, more likely, prompt User B to resolve the conflict. Currently, we're seeing changes made by User A obliterated when User B checks in, resulting in bad builds, deploys, etc missing features that had been added before the last checkin.
Since the project files are XML, why is this an issue? Am I missing something here? I've searched the archives here and googled to I can't google no more, but haven't come up with a good solution.
How do you think you trick SVN into performing step #6? It seems you misunderstood what goes wrong. SVN will never ever commit from a working copy that's not up to date, so step #6 won't work without user B previously updating and merging user A's changes. Honestly. Try it.
I guess what happens instead is this:
A checks out project.
B checks out same project.
A adds a file.
A commits changes.
B adds a file, but forgets to save the project/solution.
B tries to commit changes and gets a message he should update first.
B updates.
B switches back to VS. VS tells him the project/solution changed on disk and asks whether he wants to a) reload from disk and lose his changes b) override the version on disk.
B doesn't understand, doesn't try to understand, considers his changes valuable, and picks b), overriding the changes on disk.
B still doesn't try to understand and thus does not diff the version he has on disk with the last committed one and thus misses that he overrode A's changes.
B Checks in, overriding A's changes.
I've seen this happening once in a while, usually with a user B who does not really understand SVN's (or CVS', FTM) workflow.
So here's a few hints:
Don't update unless you have saved everything ("File"->"Save All"; for me, that's Ctrl+Shift+S). In case you have made that mistake and you're stuck, do override the changes on disk and then merge the lost changes manually. (It might also work to update the project/solution file back to version N-1, and then to HEAD again, in order to have SVN perform the merge.)
Don't commit without checking which files you changed and having a quick look at the diffs to see whether the changes are what you expect.
Commit early, commit often. The more developers work on the same code base, the more likely you get conflicts. The longer you change your working copy without updating, the more likely you get conflicts. Since the number of developers usually is out of your hands, the update frequency is the one thing you can use to reduce the probability of conflicts.
I second sbi's answer. One possible solution is to always update from within Visual Studio, at least if you use VisualSVN (I'm not sure how AnkhSVN copes with this situation).
VisualSVN will block visual studio during the update operation, and make sure any changed projects are automatically reloaded, so users can not ignore the external changes.
A rather radical but efficient solution is to use a tool to generate those solution files from a meta-definition and then putting only the meta-definition under source control, not Visual Studio project files (which are a nightmare to merge).
In my team we use MPC to do this. We have:
a bunch of .mpc files for project descriptions,
a .mwc file for workspace / solution description,
a small .cmd to generate Visual Studio files.
Since they are all hand-edited text files, we no longer have problems with Visual Studio mixing up everything.
The drawbacks are an extra-tool and the need to regenerate the solution files when files are added or removed but there are some additional benefits too:
project configurations are centralized: for instance, changing a compilation flag is done in a single place instead of on a per-project basis,
this can accomodate multiple build systems (we currently use Visual 2003 and 2005 but this also works with gcc and others).
From my experience, althgough setting up the tool can be a bit painful (but it all depends on the size and complexity of your project), this is clearly worth it.
Note that MPC isn't the only tool for this purpose. Others exist, such as CMake.
You can also try to reduce conflicts by ensuring that your project files don't list every individual file inside the project. This will avoid the project file from being changed in first place when a user adds a file.
You're free to use wildcards inside a project file: see MSDN
Example:
<ItemGroup>
<Compile Include="Src\**\*.cs" />
[...]
</ItemGroup>
It is sad that Visual Studio doesn't encourage this kind of project setup and instead opts for listing individual files.
This is very tedious and tiresome so you just have to plow through it. You will sometimes keep the local working copy since it has all of your custom projects added. However, in other cases you will want to merge in all new items from the Base solution so you end up with everything from both solution files. For readability it is best to place all base product additions before customization additions.
Do not worry that the first portion of the GUID is identical for projects, but it is the last portion that will be unique.
Fissh
Related
I often need to return to a previous milestone.
There is a vicious cycle: my error is revealed only during debugging, but I can't step back because the debugger has saved my project.
In simple projects I always used to make a copy of my cpp file (just keep ctrl and drug your file a bit).
But now projects has become more complicated (with header files).
I have tried to use save solution as. But it seems as if it is just renaming the sln file without making a copy of the whole project.
So, what shall I do? Copy the whole project as I did with the file?
The question seems a bit clumsy but it really troubles me: what elegant decision is there?
You can use software versioning systems like SVN or Git to undo the savings and return to previous point in your project, also there are some extensions for visual studio like ankhsvn and Gitextention that you can use.
If you are using vs 2010, you can disable saving on build event from Tools>Options>Projects and Solutions>Build and Run
I have been using XCode with subversion for some time now, no problem was caused when I was using it as a single developer (I was using 2 commands only, commit and add).
But now I have to share the code with another developer (who has never used any kind of version control) and integrating/merging the code has become a nightmare. No problem occur when we are integrating/merging .h/.m files but as soon as it comes to ".nib", "xcodeproj" and ".xcdatamodeld" files, we really don't know what to do.
Whenever we try to merge "xcodeproj", project was getting corrupt and merging ".xcdatamodeld" was kind of impossible for us.
So I was wondering if someone can share his/her experience on how to effectively use subversion/git/mercurial with XCode 4.0 in multiuser environment? or share a link, which can explain how to use subversion effectively in multiuser environment.
Thanks.
Are you doing this using Subversion? For 90% to 99% of the files in your repository, the standard Subversion workflow of checkout, edit, commit works well. However, for some types of files such as JPEGS and GIFS simply don't merge well. In this case, you'll have to do it the way we use to in the old SCCS and RCS days: Before you can edit and commit a file, you must lock it.
Locking a file prevents others from editing the same file and committing changes while you're doing your work on the file. It's crude, but it works. In Subversion, you can always lock any file you're editing, but if the file has the property svn:needs-lock on it, it will be checked out as read-only. You have to lock the file before editing it to make it writable, and you're not allowed to commit the file unless it is locked.
So, for those files, set the svn:needs-lock property on it.
You can automatically set this property on all newly added files (depending upon suffix) via setting the auto-properties in your Subversion client configuration.
And, if you really, really want to make sure that all .nibs and xcodeproj and all of the other flies of these types have svn:needs-lock set on them, you can use my pre-commit hook which will prevent these files from being committed unless this property is set.
There is no failsafe way to merge these kinds of files that I am aware of. So you will have to
try to ensure that only one person is changing these files at a time. That won't work always, so just log what you changed in the file with the commit message. Then if there is a conflict, you can manually resolve it by taking the version that changed more of the file and redo manually what the other person did.
That's normally not a big deal, like adding a new source file to an .xcodeproject, or changing the alignment of an element in a .nib. It's becoming a problem if your project is huge or your nib is containing the whole interface. For it to work well (which in practice it does), you need to split up your projects into sub-projects if they grow too huge.
I had the same problem with 2 other developers Xcode with git. Unfortunately, Xcode project files are an XML file, tracks file included in the project as well as setting. I'm not certain, but I think .nib files are also XML files as well. Someone can correct me on that.
Git did a great job at merging the Xcode project file, and never really had any problems with our *.nib files either. The only time we did have a problem is when we both added/removed files with the same names, or someone did a lot of heavy removing and adding of a lot of files.
The only way we solved this was to have each other push ann pull as soon as we added/removed files. So that way the person had the latest files, and didn't add them in their own repository then pull the latest commit which had the same file in it. Or they work adding changes to a file that was removed or renamed.
That is the best solution we found, as soon as we added or removed a file have everyone else in the team pull. Not a great solution btw. However, you should be committing often anyways.
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 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.