We currently have a local TF Server here in our company, and we are about to make a subset of our projects open source (via Codeplex), but we are having problems mixing two Team Foundation Servers in the same solution. Looks like Visual Studio can't be connected to many TF Servers at the same time. What's the best way to deal with that?
Solution 1: Bind Open source projects to Codeplex only, and proprietary projects to local only. Bind and un bind projects depending where are you connected --> Looks like VS doesn’t like the idea. Projects loose bindings and start to behave strangely.
Solution 2 Bind all to local and use another solution for the open source subset --> Team Explorer Workspace manager avoid you using overlapping local folder trees, even on different servers, so it is not an option.
Solution 3 Bind all to local using TFS. Use another source control like SVN for the open source subset. It looks it will become messy easily, but we don't have a lot of options.
Someone with open source projects has faced a problem like this??
I would stick to one single authorative repository or you'd end up with a version hell at some point.
If you intend to have external developers contributing code on the codeplex side you will need to merge your changes with theirs and also integrate their changes on your own internal TFS server.
It's safer to have one single authoritive repository and just create snapshots for milestone releases on the other.
You could do your fine grained check-ins and modifications on your internal repository and periodically integrate/merge them to the codeplex code-tree. However what works on one codebase may not work so well on the other after integrating, the sooner you integrate changes the better (don't work on your own isolated branch too long).
Related
I have a few (3) core projects I want to share across many solutions (12+).
So, say I have 12 websites and they use some shared back end core code (in this case I'm not talking about shared js, css or views - I'm talking about business objects, entity stuff, etc.).
I need to be able to identify which site has which version of the shared code in dev, test, prod, etc. so a developer can get the website code and get the right version of the shared code to develop or patch the website.
And then the MS build server needs to know which version of the shared code to get for the deployment.
To solve this, I'm seeing people branch that core code - which seems absurd to do 12+ times. (I do expect to branch the core code sometimes for things like hot fixes and long running projects.)
I'm also seeing people copy DLLs of the core code and check those in.
I would think I would list the dependencies for my solutions based on TFS label names somewhere so developers can easily get the apps running with the right code and given a tfs label the build server can get the code for the website and the proper version of the core code. I'm using TFS & VS 2013 at the moment too, so there's that.
So, is there a way to do this that's straightforward, supportable/scale-able and intuitive? Thanks - Peter
Labels in TFS is very limited. For example once the label created you couldn't change and update it. If one of your core projects updated, did you need to create a new label for it. If you did and use the new label for one of your solution. However you found there are some bugs in this update, you need a newer update of your core project to fix the bug. Then a newer label created, you need to manually maintain the dependencies which seems not to be an easy job.
Moreover how to list the dependencies for your solutions based on TFS label names? TFS don't have this built-in option, seems the only way is store it in a txt or someother files and check in the source control. Every time the developer open a website application need to check it first and get label from server to their workspace and work on it.
Usually the purpose of sharing code between projects is reducing maintenance. There’s two main code sharing paths: source and binary. The difference between them you could take a look at this blog: Code Sharing in Team Foundation Server
Sharing code between products is a primary cause of quality erosion and elevated bug counts. I would recommend you to build separately and sharing binary output through NuGet which use preferable.
Also take a look below similar questions:
Sharing code between solutions in TFS
TFS 2010 Branch Across Team Projects - Best Practices
So I'm creating my project using a git source control and using some libraries from another repositories. But I'm also developer of this libraries and I want edit/debug them in my project so I can add it to project not alike binary dll but alike another project.
I found this article : Multiple projects in a solution vs. multiple projects in source control
But I'm working on Windows and usually just using Tortoise Git. I guess that will be really hard to configure it such way.
There is another idea. Do not add solution file to version control and create some readme how another developers must construct project and it's dependents.
Maybe someone already met or even solved such trouble, I'm interesting to know any solutions and variants for it.
Thank you.
At a company I used to work for, we ended up putting the projects themselves into different repo's which made managing them easier as opposed to 1 solution. We then wrote a batch file to simply put all the pieces back together and compile it correctly (just compiling the component Projects). This may not work for everyone but it is just a suggestion.
The reason we did this was because opening the solution in VS was getting to be very memory intensive for the machines and was becoming a giant mess of files.
Also this can be used so that teams only work on their specified software and can really only talk to the other components. This is a great way to enforce 3-tier/n-tier architecture design since you separate the projects out and let teams/developers only worry about what they're working on (not really fool proof but it helps).
In our company we usually have a solution consist of several projects, mostly dozen or several dozens. Those are coming from different repos 'cause some of those are general purpose libs, frameworks etc. We, however, use SVN with VS AnkhSVN plugin so there are completely no issues with commiting changes to more than one repo.
My assumption for you is to check whether Git VS plugins could work with seeral repos in one solution. More info on Git VS plugins here: Using Git with Visual Studio
BTW, accroding to 'one or many repos' discussion - we create one repo for a project. So if there are several parts of the project and some of those existed before and will most probably keep being after - those should not be placed in the project repo. Should something great be born within the project and we do believe this will overlive it - we could always migrate repo subtree to an independent SVN repo.
I'll try to make this as straight forward as possible.
Currently our team has a VSS database where our projects are stored.
Developers grab the code and place on their localhost machine and develop locally.
Designated developer grabs latest version and pushes to development server.
The problem is, when a file is removed from the project (by deleting it in VS2008) then the next time another developer (not the one who deleted it) checks in, it prompts them to check in those deleted files because they still have a copy on their local machine.
Is there a way around this? To have VSS instruct the client machine to remove these files and not prompt them to check back in? What is the preferred approach for this?
Edit Note(s):
I agree SVN is better than VSS
I agree Web Application project is better than Web Site project
Problem: This same thing happens with files which are removed from class libraries.
You number one way around this is to stop using web site projects. Web Site Projects cause visual studio to automatically add anything it finds in the project path to the project.
Instead, move to Web Application Projects which don't have this behavior problem.
Web Site projects are good for single person developments.
UPDATE:
VB shops from the days gone past had similiar issues in that whatever they had installed affected the build process. You might take a page from their playbook and have a "clean" build machine. Prior to doing a deployment you would delete all of the project folders, then do a get latest. This way you would be sure that the only thing deployed is what you have in source control.
Incidentally, this is also how the TFS Build server works. It deletes the workspace, then creates a new one and downloads the necessary project files.
Further, you might consider using something like Cruise Control to handle builds.
Maybe the dev should take care to only check in or add things that they have been working on. Its kind of sloppy if they are adding things that they were not even using.
Your best solution would be to switch to a better version control system, like SVN.
At my job we recently acquired a project from an outsourcing company who did use VSS as their version control. We were able to import all of the change history into SVN from VSS, and get up and running pretty quickly with SVN at that point.
And with SVN, you can set up ignores for files and folders, so the files in your web projects dont get put into SVN and the ignore attributes are checked out onto each developer's machine
I believe we used VSSMigrate to do the migration to SVN http://www.poweradmin.com/sourcecode/vssmigrate.aspx
VSS is an awful versioning system and you should switch to SVN but that's got nothing to do with the crux of the problem. The project file contains references to what files are actually part of the project. If the visual studio project isn't checked in along with the changes to it, theres no way for any other developer to be fully updated hence queries to delete files when they grab the latest from VSS. From there you've got multiple choices...
Make the vbproj part of the repository. Any project level changes will be part of the commit and other developers can be notified. Problem here is it's also going to be on the dev server. Ideally you could use near the same process to deploy to dev as you would to deploy as release. This leads into the other way...
SVN gives you hooks for almost all major events, where hooks are literally just a properly named batch file / exe. For your purposes, you could use a post-commit hook to push the appropriate files, say via ftp, to the server on every commit. File problems solved, and more importantly closer towards the concept of continuous integration.
Something you may want to consider doing:
Get Latest (Recursive)
Check In ...
Its a manual process, but it may give you the desired result, plus if VS talks about deleted files, you know they should be deleted from the local machine in step 1.
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're making the switch from SourceGear Vault to TortoiseSVN with VisualSVN for Visual Studio integration - absolutely love it. However, there are multiple class libraries that we reference in multiple different applications that aren't a part of the working copy root in any of the applications. What's the best way to deal with this so that we can continue to utilize Visual Studio integration, but still keep various class libraries located outside of each project/application's root? SourceGear doesn't have an issue with this.
It is possible to add class libraries separately just using TortoiseSVN in explorer, but there's no ability to commit changes to anything outside of the working copy from within Visual Studio; neither are there the VisualSVN "traffic lights" indicating status for these outside of working copy class libraries.
By the way, we're also going with the "one repository with many projects" route as opposed to multiple repositories, especially as that is how we have worked for years to this point.
UPDATE:
I re-read some things that I had looked at before and discovered that svn:externals don't just refer to using code in different repositories, but can also be used to use multiple working copies in VisualSVN.
See http://www.visualsvn.com/support/topic/00007/ and http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.2/svn.advanced.externals.html
However, is this the best way to deal with this issue? There's a good thread that goes through things, but doesn't completely resolve things.
Therefore, use svn:externals or not? Use multiple repositories or not? Again, for years we have referenced the code in shared class libraries amongst multiple solutions/applications and this works for us. Now how best to make this work with VisualSVN?
Found the best answers here:
Referenced Projects
Sometimes it is useful to construct a working copy that is made out of a number of different checkouts. For example, you may want different subdirectories to come from different locations in a repository, or perhaps from different repositories altogether. If you want every user to have the same layout, you can define the svn:externals properties.
And here:
Include a common sub-project
Sometimes you will want to include another project within your working copy, perhaps some library code. You don't want to make a duplicate of this code in your repository because then you would lose connection with the original (and maintained) code. Or maybe you have several projects which share core code. There are at least 3 ways of dealing with this.
I understand it's been more than ten years since you asked this question, but I am glad to tell you that there was progress in implementing support for multiple working copies in the VisualSVN plug-in.
VisualSVN 7.1 and 6.5 support multiple working copies within a single solution. The new functionality is available to Visual Studio 2019 and 2017 users.
Download the latest VisualSVN builds from the main download page. Please also see the article KB7: Using Multiple Working Copies in VisualSVN.