Visual Studio Source Control
- Thread starter POB
- Start date
Definitely hg/git, you can use it locally without the need for a central server or with so it can grow with your needs. I use git form the command line but there is some good GUI tools and VS integration bits if that's what you're after.
He said a good solution for source control
I've not had the luxury of working with other source control, other than TFS which seemed to work great in our office until more people started joining and merging files out. I did attempt at setting up GIT but, wasn't pleased with the integration with visual studio - maybe i had a configuration issue.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 449
Obvious troll is obvious
your point being?
I thought you was joking, to be honest. Seems not. Sorry
SourceSafe was crap 10 years ago. Nowadays it shouldn't be in active use. Repositories using it should either be locked to read-only or they should be upgraded to a modern VCS.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 449
I thought you was joking, to be honest. Seems not. Sorry
SourceSafe was crap 10 years ago. Nowadays it shouldn't be in active use. Repositories using it should either be locked to read-only or they should be upgraded to a modern VCS.
the OP is one person, not a team, and SourceSafe integrates directly in with Visual Studio
it doesn't have many of the features of a more modern VCS, yeah, but it will do this job perfectly adequately and with minimum fuss
SourceSafe is still about the worst choice possible for a single-man project? It isn't free, for starters. And it's a pile of crap to actually work with on a regular basis. Renaming files is like a major event. Merging is hilarious (and yes single-man projects still need to do merges!)
A DVCS like Git or Mercurial is the most natural choice. Because 1) they're free and 2) there's no need to install any nasty server software that you have to leave running all the time.
Considering he will almost certainly want something free, the choice is really between SVN, Git or Mercurial.
A DVCS like Git or Mercurial is the most natural choice. Because 1) they're free and 2) there's no need to install any nasty server software that you have to leave running all the time.
Considering he will almost certainly want something free, the choice is really between SVN, Git or Mercurial.
Last edited:
I have had a play with GIT these last few days and have come to like it quite a bit although tourtisegit needs some work. Does anyone prefer Mercuial over Git (having used both)? I have read over several comparisons and they all seem to point at Git being better.
They're both very similar but Git does have a more "unix hacker" style CLI than Mercurial.
Mercurial has named branches, which are totally awesome for maintaining a merge-able hierarchy of production versions. If the bug first appeared in v1.5 and you're up to v1.8, then you'd do hg update v1.5 then fix the bug, commit it, then merge v1.5 into v1.6 then into v1.7 and so on.
Git has named branches too but their history is lossy. In the sense that only the head is tagged with the branch name. Whereas Mercurial ensures each changeset is formally tagged with the branch name at commit-time. This is valuable history to be stored and I'm sure Git will sooner or later be improved to work in a similar way as Mercurial.
Mercurial has named branches, which are totally awesome for maintaining a merge-able hierarchy of production versions. If the bug first appeared in v1.5 and you're up to v1.8, then you'd do hg update v1.5 then fix the bug, commit it, then merge v1.5 into v1.6 then into v1.7 and so on.
Git has named branches too but their history is lossy. In the sense that only the head is tagged with the branch name. Whereas Mercurial ensures each changeset is formally tagged with the branch name at commit-time. This is valuable history to be stored and I'm sure Git will sooner or later be improved to work in a similar way as Mercurial.
The safest option for the team that you describe is Mercurial, in my opinion. It has a Subversion-like CLI and basic workflow, but has none of the disadvantages of client-server based VCS systems like Subversion. For a 25 man team there will be quite a bit of learning and knowledge transfer involved to get everyone up to speed. Whilst Subversion would almost certainly be the quickest in this regard (as it is the most similar to SourceSafe in workflow) it would still not actually get you very far ahead from where you are today with SourceSafe. It has some of the same key design flaws as SourceSafe.
Git is the wildcard here and I dread to think how hard it would be to force it onto a 25 man team of, presumably, varying skill levels.
Whatever you do, go distributed version control (even if you're just a single developer). Local repositories, good branching and merging all rock. Learn more here: http://hginit.com/
Mercurial + Visual Studio:
http://visualhg.codeplex.com/documentation
Git + Visual Studio
http://code.google.com/p/gitextensions/
Mercurial + Visual Studio:
http://visualhg.codeplex.com/documentation
Git + Visual Studio
http://code.google.com/p/gitextensions/
The more technical amongst us prefer Mercurial, but as you said there is a scale of technical ability though the dept.
The other consideration is the various internal applications we've written to manage our code which interact directly with VSS (we've written code management tools which automatically promote (and for .net, build) all the code through our various Dev, Test and Live environments.
tried subversion and ankh whatever its called worked allright until the **** hit the fan then it was a pita.
free stuff is free for a reason imo however each to there own i know a lot of people use svm happily i just had issues probably down to my lack of knowledge of its ways. Perhaps in a team of people that knew it better it would have been ok but im in a team of 1 and it just didnt sit right with me.
free stuff is free for a reason imo however each to there own i know a lot of people use svm happily i just had issues probably down to my lack of knowledge of its ways. Perhaps in a team of people that knew it better it would have been ok but im in a team of 1 and it just didnt sit right with me.
Last edited:
