I have cruise control and VSS 6.0. I have configured cruise control every hour with the condition IfModificationExists.
It check for the modification and get the source, but it checks all the files in the VSS. ie my VSS contains 1000 files and only 1 file is modified. CCNet detects 1 modification, but checks for all the files from the VSS with my local. Due to which the script runs every time for a long time.
is thr any option to get only the modified files?
Ok, I am running the danger to have many negative votes here, but I am really trying to help on the long run. I have marked my answer "community wiki" so that I prove my intentions are noble.
I don't know the answer to the question you are asking. I am obligated to try and tell you, without wanting to sound dogmatic, that you might consider switching to another version control system. I will not say which, although I can't help saying that I am using Subversion with CruiseControl.NET and it works very nice.
If you go to the "CruiseControl.NET : Visual Source Safe Source Control Block" documentation page they even have a section at the bottom: Reasons why you might want to consider a different version control system. I guess this means something.
Related
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.
I'm developing in Visual Studio 2005, using TFS as the source control. Whenever I haven't been working on the solution for a while, I always do a recursive Get Latest in Solution Explorer.
However, this doesn't always seem to work. If I know I don't have the latest version of a file, even right-clicking this (in Solution Explorer), choosing Get Specific Version and ticking the "Force get" box doesn't work.
I seem to need to open up the TFS Source Control window, and there force a Get of the file in question.
Also, the Solution Explorer often has the little "checked out to someone else" icon next to files, but when I check in Source Control, they're not checked out at all!
I'd just like to know if these problems are widespread, whether they persist in VS2008 (I haven't used TFS for a big project in 2008 yet), and if there are any fixes or workarounds.
1) I would not make a habit out of Get Latest from Solution Explorer. Even if it always worked 100% bug free, it is far slower and less reliable than doing it from the command line or Source Control Explorer. SlnExp has to crawl your whole project structure and issue non-recursive calls...pseudo algorithm:
parse sln file
foreach project in sln
TFS_GET makefile
parse makefile
enumerate sourcefiles[]
TFS_GET sourcefiles[]
loop
SCE requires no parsing and issues one single recursive webservice call. In addition to the performance gain, this is much safer:
(a) Build-time dependencies aren't always part of a project's file list. Executable tools, 3rd party assemblies, and deployment scripts are all common examples. SCE will download them, SlnExp won't.
(b) Scoping Get calls down to specific files won't yield the expected result when a file is renamed or moved. At best, the "old" name is deleted from disk; at worst, nothing appears to happen at all. (this may be the cause of the bug you reported) In order for a file to truly be renamed/moved in sync with the server, the old & new paths must both be inside the scope of the Get.
2) There have been many bug fixes to the SlnExp "glyphs" over the years. I won't claim that VS2008 SP1 is perfect in this regard but it is definitely improved.
Sometimes Get specific version even checking both checkboxes won't get you the latest file. Most commonly what happens is that you've made a change to a file, and you want to undo those changes by re-getting the latest version. Well... that's what Undo pending changes is for and not the purpose of Get specific version.
If in doubt:
undo pending check in on the file(s) before you do 'get latest'
do a compare afterwards to make sure your file matches the expected version
run a recursive 'compare' on your whole project afterwards to see what's different
keep an eye on pending changes window and sometimes you may need to check 'take server version' to resolve an incompatible pending change
And this one's my favorite that I just discovered :
check the Output window for messages such as this :
Warning - Unable to refresh R:\TFS-PROJECTS\www.example.com\ExampleMVC\Example MVC\Example MVC.csproj because you have a pending edit.
Yes this critical message appears in the output window. No other notifications!
Nothing in pending changes and no other dialog message telling you that the file you just requested explicitly was not retrieved! And yes - you resolve this by just running Undo pending changes and getting the file.
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'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) :)