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.
Related
I am using VS2013 TFS, my scenario is
1'st version of code checked in TFS and released. (Local Path is
C:\Development\DEV )
2'nd version coding started and not completed.
Now client is asking issue fix on top of first version ? how to do that ?
The same issue fix should be included in 2nd version also. how to do?
Assuming you have no branches yet, it goes something like this:
Get History on your main (v2) branch and work out the changeset or date/time at which you originally built v1.
Right click your main branch (v2) and create a new branch (for v1). Choose "from a changeset" or "from a date/time" and enter the information from the first step to identify where (or rather when) the branch should be taken from. Commit this branch. You mow have two separate independent branches, with the v1 branch using the historical code you had for the v1 release, and your main branch still containing v2.
Now you can fix the issue, in either branch. You will need to use the Source Control explorer to map both the branches into separate folders your PC so that you can work on them. (If your source code is not relocatable then you will have to switch between the branches by remapping them to the same location. This can be confusing but not too difficult if you do things carefully and make sure you get a clean copy of a branch before you start working on it. The pain of this is a good way of learning to make your code relocatable the next time :-)
Now you need to replicate the fix in the other branch. If the branches are quite different you may find it easier to just write the fix a second time in the other branch, or you can right-click on the fixed branch and Merge into the second branch. TFS will do as much as it can for you but you will then need to resolve any merge conflicts to apply the changes you made for your fix to the second branch without breaking anything. (This can be quite tricky, so take care, and if you are unsure remember that you can undo your changes and re-start the merge at any time)
Once you have finished the fix and tested your merged code locally, diff it once more against the previous/workspace version to be sure that you can's see anything you might have screwed up in the merge, and then check it in.
Finally, if your release needs to be built by your build server, then you will need to point your build system at the v1 branch to get it to build the (fixed) v1 version for a new release (for a once-off build you just have to redirect your source control mappings for the v1 branch so that the build server gets from v1 instead of v2 when it 'Gets' the source code from source control, and when you are finished, remap the source back to the v2 branch)
As long as you think through each step and take care, it's fairly straight forward. But if you have never done it before, I suggest you work through each of the steps above and do some searches to learn more about how to branch, how to map source control folders, and how to merge.
Branching and merging is a complex topic and there are many patterns that you could follow. Without knowing more about your requirements it's impossible to give you good advice. You need to consider things like: How many clients consume the code. Is this for a shrink wrap application with multiple versions available concurrently or a production system where there is only 1 version "live" at one time. You'll also need to take in to account how you test your code (environments etc) and what kind of build process and deployment process you have.
The best advice I can give you without more information is to read the ALM Rangers guidance on TFS version control. Then come back with more specific questions. Also, keep it simple, don't over think it or you'll get in to a mess.
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.
I've used source controls for a few years (if you count the Source Safe years), but am by no means an expert. We currently are using an older version of Sourcegear Vault. Our team currently uses a check out and lock model. I would rather switch to a update and merge model, but need to convince the other developers.
The reason the developers (not me) set up to work as check out and lock was due to renegade files. Our company works with a consulting firm to do much of our development work. Some years ago, long before my time here, they had the source control set up for update and merge. The consultants went to check in, but encountered a merge error. They then chose to work in a disconnected mode for months. When it was finally time to test the project, bugs galore appeared and it was discovered that the code bases were dramatically different. Weeks of work ended up having to be redone. So they went to check out and lock as the solution.
I don't like check out and lock, because it makes it very difficult for 2 or more people to work in the same project at the same time. Whenever you add a new file of any type or change a file's name, source control checks out the .csproj file. That prevents any other developers from adding/renaming files.
I considered making just the .csproj file as mergable, but the Sourcegear site says that this is a bad idea, because csproj is IDE auto-generated and that you cannot guarantee that two different VS generated files will produce the same code.
My friend (the other developer) tells me that the solution is to immediately check in your project. To me, the problem with this is that I may have a local copy that won't build and it could take time to get a build. It could be hours before I get the build working, which means that during that time, no one else would be able to create and rename files.
I counter that the correct solution is to switch to a mergable model. My answer to the "renegade files" issue is that it was an issue of poor programmer discipline and that you shouldn't use a weaker programmer choice as a fix for poor discipline; instead you should take action to fix the lack of programmer discipline.
So who's right? Is check in - check out a legitimate answer to the renegade file issue? Or does the .csproj issue far too big of a hassle for multiple developers? Or is Sourcegear wrong and that it should be ok to set the csproj file to update and merge?
The problem with update and merge that you guys ran into was rooted in a lack of communication between your group and the consulting group, and a lack of communication from the consulting group to your group as to what the problem was, and not necessarily a problem with the version control method itself. Ideally, the communication problem would need to be resolved first.
I think your technical analysis of the differences between the two version control methodologies is sound, and I agree that update/merge is better. But I think the real problem is in the communication to the people in your group(s), and how that becomes apparent in the use of version control, and whether the people in the groups are onboard/comfortable with the version control process you've selected. Note that as I say this, my own group at work is struggling through the exact same thing, only with Agile/SCRUM instead of VC. It's painful, it's annoying, it's frustrating, but the trick (I think) is in identifying the root problem and fixing it.
I think the solution here is in making sure that (whatever VC method is chosen) is communicated well to everyone, and that's the complicated part - you have to get not just your team on board with a particular VC technique, but also the consulting team. If someone on the consulting team isn't sure of how to perform a merge operation, well, try to train them. The key is to keep the communication open and clear so that problems can be resolved when they appear.
Use a proper source control system (svn, mercurial, git, ...)
If you are going to do a lot of branching, don't use anything less recent than svn 1.6. I'm guessing mercurial/git would be an even better solution, but I don't have too much hands-on-experience using those yet.
If people constantly are working on the same parts of the system, consider the system design. It indicates that each unit has too much responsibility.
Never, ever accept people to offline for more than a day or so. Exceptions to this rule should be extremely rare.
Talk to each other. Let the other developers know what your are working on.
Personally I would avoid having project files in my repository. But then again, I would never ever lock developers to one tool. Instead I would use a build system that generated project files/makefiles/whatever (CMake is my flavor for doing this).
EDIT: I think locking files is fixing the symptoms, not the disease. You will end up having developers doing nothing if this becomes a habit.
I have worked on successful projects with teams of 40+ developers using the update-and-merge model. The thing that makes this method work is frequent merges: the independent workers are continuously updating (merging down) changes from the repository, and everyone is frequently merging up their changes (as soon as they pass basic tests).
Merging frequently tends to mean that each merge is small, which helps a lot. Testing frequently, both on individual codebases and nightly checkouts from the repository, helps hugely.
We are using subversion with no check-in/check-out restrictions on any files in a highly parallel environment. I agree that the renegade files issue is a matter of discipline. Not using merge doesn't solve the underlying problem, what's preventing the developer from copying their own "fixed" copy of code over other people's updates?
Merge is a pita, but that can be minimized by checking in and updating your local copy early and often. I agree with you regarding breaking checkins, they are to be avoided. Updating your local copy with checked in changes on the other hand will force you to merge your changes in properly so that when you finally check-in things go smoothly.
With regards to .csproj files. They are just text, they are indeed mergeable if you spend the time to figure out how the file is structured, there are internal references that need to be maintained.
I don't believe any files that are required to build a project should be excluded from version control. How can you reliably rebuild or trace changes if portions of the project aren't recorded?
I am the development manager of a small company, only 3 programmers.
The projects we work on sometimes take weeks and we employ the big bang, shock and awe implementation style. This means that we have lots of database changes and program changes that have to work perfectly on the night that we implement. We checkout a program, change it and set it aside because implementing it before everything else will make 20 other things blow up. I am for check out and lock. Otherwise, another person might change a few things not realizing that program has had massive changes already. And the merge only helps if you haven't made database changes or changes to other systems not under source control. (Microsoft CRM, basically any packaged software that is extensible through configuration)
IMO, project files such as .csproj should not be part of the versioning system, since they aren't source really.
They also almost certainly are not mergeable.
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.
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.