We are a small Microsoft shop with 4 developers. We like the idea to have everything integrated and under the same SQL database but not to deal with too many features or a complexity we don't need.
The other option would be to use two distinct third party tools. We also wonder if VS2010 version control and bug/issue tracking capabilities are comparable with the best third party tools on the market.
With TFS 2010, there is a TFS Basic version/configuration options. You can use SQL Server Express as the database, the install is simple and quick and you can install it on a client OS. It includes version system, work items and build system (no sharepoint, reporting...). Price should not be high, the target users for TFS Basic are those used to use SourceSafe. Also if you have MSDN, there is a change that it goes with it, so you would not have to pay extra.
Some thoughts on TFVC in general -- note that I've never used TFVC specifically, but I've been in a similar situation a couple times. My main concern is that it's too little.
TFVC (Team Foundation Version Control) appears to be a client-server version control system. I don't know anybody who hasn't upgraded to DVCS yet. I've never used TFVC but I can't imagine what benefits it'd offer to outweigh the architectural disadvantage. (And before you ask: I only use it from my workstation in the office, where the network has never gone down, but I still use its distributed features every day.)
I also work at a small Microsoft shop with 4 developers and we have never once regretted using Mercurial. It's one of the few decisions we made that everybody seems to have loved. It's one of those moves, like switching to a language with GC, that you never want to even think about reversing.
In terms of support, I hope you found some way to get great support from Microsoft. Things will come up with any VCS and it looks like community support is a couple orders of magnitude worse than Hg or Git.
I can't say much about bug trackers -- I think they're all pretty much the same these days. I've installed a couple open-source ones in an afternoon, even with no experience. The major difference seems to be, if you go with a big-name one, you'll be able to find lots of tools and extensions that work with it. For example, there are a million and one extensions for reporting/testing/etc. for Bugzilla. TFS probably has similar things, for enough money.
Two other things I'd keep in mind:
First, even if you only want these 2 features today, you will want other features in the future, and it will be (sooner or later) something Microsoft doesn't offer. So it's best to make peace with 3rd-party tools ASAP.
Second, unless you miraculously happen to pick the perfect set of tools for your company's future growth for all time, you will at some point want to migrate away from whatever solution you pick today. So make sure it either provides a way to do a full export, or is popular enough that other projects are falling over themselves to write importers for it.
I guess this all sounds kind of negative for TFS. I didn't really mean it that way -- I'm sure it does some things really well. But unless you're rolling in dough already, save your money.
Good luck with whatever you choose!
TFS work ittm tracking is awesome. Whatever your workflow is and the information you want to gather, you can do it easily with TFS.
Most expect TFS to do what they do out of the box as if it were omniscient. Unfortunately, you do things slightly differently than me and I from everyone else. The key is making it easy for the many different roles in your organization to get and input information into whatever your work tracking system is.
There is a plateau you will reach with custom, cobbled together tools that you won't get from cross referencing information along the product development process. TFS removes that barrier. The second barrier is knowing how to consume the information and that takes training and experience in effectively managing projects.
TFS Version control is certainly the low point when compared to the industry right now. DVCS popularity exploded about the time TFS came out. That said, Brian Harry has stated that TFS "fully expect that we will be adding distributed version control to TFS." http://blogs.msdn.com/bharry/archive/2010/01/27/codeplex-now-supports-mercurial.aspx
Take that as you will.
TFS is a great system but after having deployed and used it for some time I realize that the TCO is just too high to justify for a small team.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have the opportunity to give a formal presentation to my boss about anything that benefits the company. My idea is to adopt source control in my workplace. I have been using Mercurial to manage my own project at work, but the rest of the team does not have a formal source control system in place. Unfortunately, I'm not very good at presenting ideas.
So, can you guys tell me why developers MUST use source control? Additionally, why would you choose any tool except Visual SourceSafe? I don't have experience using VSS, but he is likely to ask why we wouldn't just use Microsoft's tools.
I want to hear opinions from the many smart programmers here! My preferred options are SVN or mercurial. Both seem to have good support for their Windows versions, and both are less archaic than CVS. Also, as a self-declared open source disciple, I would prefer to suggest an open-source tool. :)
Thank you!
Edit: To make it short, generally, current practice for other developers is copying folder, tag with date and maybe record on their own. You get the picture. What if my boss says "if it works, why fix it?"
Let's compare two examples, one development environment that uses source control, and one that doesn't.
A: Does Use
B: Does not Use
Scenario 1: A project is requested, completed, and rolled out
A + B) Programmers develop the project internally, when it's completed, push it out to testing, and then deliver to the client (whoever that may be)
Not much difference, in the big picture
Scenario 2: After a project is released, the client decides that they don't want feature X
A + B) Developers remove the code that the client doesn't want, test, and deliver.
Again, not much difference.
Scenario 3: Two weeks later, the client decides that they actually DO want feature X
A) Developers reintegrate the code they took out in 2 back into the normal development tree, test, and deliver.
B) The developers search for the old code on their personal machines, the file server, and backups. If they find the code, they must manually reinsert each file. If they do not, they probably have to recode that entire feature.
It's easy to get old code that you took out for one reason or another
Scenario 4: There's a strange bug in the system where a function is supposed to return a boolean result, but always returns false. It wasn't like that two weeks ago.
A) Developers examine all the old versions of the software, and figure out that a return false directive isn't in the proper scope - it's executing inside a loop instead of outside.
B) Developers spend weeks trying to figure out what the problem is. Eventually, they notice the return on the wrong line, and fix it. Not having source control means they had to examine each and every file that was executed, rather than finding the differences from when it was working and now.
Scenario 5: Someone breaks the build. It gets past testing and is only noticed weeks later.
A) The team examines the commit history, finds out who broke the build, makes that person fix it and buy the team dinner.
B) The team has to go back through the entire project to find the error, but can't figure out who put that code in. Developers blame each other, and the team dynamic fails.
It's easy to see who committed what, when, and why.
Use source control because neither you nor your team are perfect. The primary function of source control is to ensure that you have a complete historical record of your development process. Having this record, you have the ability to confidently branch out with "experimental" versions, knowing that if the experiment fails, you can back up to an earlier version.
In addition, a good source control system like svn will permit multiple developers to work on the same file and provide powerful tools for reconciling the differences that each introduces.
Simply - so you have a true history of the code - to investigate changes (reasons for bugs), revert to versions, audit, etc. Backup isn't enough - you simply have a copy of the current picture. Ever change a file and wish you could remember what you did?
You have to use Source Control for these reasons
1) You can rollback to any version
2) Different developers can work on the same files
3) All developers, will have access to the same code base
4) You can track changes
5) You can rollback changes that don't work
6) Source control is the basis of continuous integration and helps massively with TDD
7) If you don't use source control, you will slowly go mad as files get lost/overwritten and nothing works as it should
VSS is not the worst SCC application, I used it for years and grew to hate it, but it does work, is simple, and many people know it.
Here's a simple real-life example.
A few years ago, my boss says, "Feature XYZ used to work, and now it doesn't. No one knows what happened. Can you fix it?"
Now I've never worked with feature XYZ before. So fixing it would involve a lot of flailing around trying to figure out what it does.
But we have source control! So I do this:
Create a test script to test feature XYZ: "Click here, type this, click there, etc."
Get current version. Build. Test. Feature XYZ is broken.
Get version from a week ago. Build. Test. Feature XYZ works.
Get version halfway between those two. Build. Test. Feature XYZ works.
Get version halfway between previous one, and current one. Build. Test. Feature XYZ is broken.
I kept doing this binary search until eventually I hit the point of change: version 145 (we'll say) had the feature working, but version 146 had it broken. Then I just did a compare between those two versions to see what changed. Turns out our technical lead (sigh) had checked in code that changed functionality, but also introduced a side effect that broke feature XYZ.
So I removed the side effect, tested...and lo and behold, feature XYZ worked again.
Without source control, you can never do this. You'll have to flail around, changing one thing or another, hoping to magically hit on the thing that makes feature XYZ work again.
With source control, you just test your way through the versions, pinpoint the exact code that caused the problem, and fix it.
Microsoft (MSDN) has a good article on the benefits of source control.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173539.aspx
There are also lots of good questions here on SO as to the pros and cons.
What are your pros and cons of git after having used it?
Subversion is very popular, but Git is going to be the "next big thing" in the source control world.
It seems to me that most people have covered the major feature of source control but one of the biggest positives is skipped over. These are:
Branches
Without a source code repository it is impossible to create branches (or copies/stream/etc.) of your code for particular purposes. Not being able to create and merge branches is one of the biggest things that disqualifies VSS from being a real source code control system. Some of the purposes of a branch include:
Bug Fix
Sometimes you need to resolve a bug and do it in a place away form the mainline or trunk version of your code. This may be to resolve a problem in the testing environment or any number of reasons. If you have a version control tool you should be able to easily make a new branch (something VSS sucks at) to fix the bug and be able to merge it back into the mainline code if necessary
Maintenance Release
This could be much the same as a bug fix but done after code has been released to production. Examples would be for fix packs, service releases, etc. Again, you want to be able to merge the changes back into the trunk if necessary
New Feature
Sometimes you need to start development of a new version while maintaining your current code. For example you release and maintain v1.0 but need to start work on v2.0 while maintaining v1.0. Branches help resolve this situation
Tagging/Labeling
Another thing source code control systems do is make snapshots of the source code at a particular point in time. These are called labels in VSS, tags in subversion, etc. By creating these on a regular basis and linking them to some substantial milestone in your project it then becomes possible to determine what exactly has changed in your code between releases. This can be important for auditors but also in tracking down the source/scope of an issue. VSS also gets a fail here because VSS only versions the files, not directories. This means it is impossible to re-create a previous version of the system if you rename/move/delete files or directories in the repository (something that happens a lot if you refactor). Good source code control systems like Subversion do just this.
I suggest using SVN, because:
Source control gives you excellent history. You can see where what changes have been made, thus providing a great way to see what's changed over time (even better if you fill out the submit summary each time)
To the developer, it provides an excellent fallback if something goes horribly wrong. You can revert changes to a file back to any point in its history, so you can try out that mod you wanted to make, and if it doesn't work, roll it right back easily.
It provides a central repository that is much easier to back up than running around to different developers' computers.
It allows you to branch a project off in a different direction - useful for specializations and customizations.
It enables more than one developer to work together on the same project, and the same source, by letting you merge and otherwise manipulate changes to one central copy.
I suggest NOT using VSS - see this page for reasons:
http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/windev/sourcesafe.html for more reasons.
If the current process is copying a folder and giving it a date, isn't that so that you get some sort of development history, so isn't that basically a simple form of source control?
So to answer any criticisms about source control, you're already doing it. Now you just need to point out the weaknesses in the current system and suggest a better one.
Why do you need to re-invent the wheel when people have really thought about a lot of the complex scenarios which can occur during development and developed the tools which let them handle them.
What you're currently doing is very fragile and will fall over if any sort of complex scenario comes up, at which point you'll have to expend a lot of energy working out how to do something that the tools already do. VSS is better than what you're doing, but doesn't have the very useful conventions that SVN, git or mercurial has which allows multiple projects to live together in a well organised manner - I'm talking branches, tags and merging, both of which are fragile and basically a nightmare under vss.
SVN does have plugins for visual studio. Some are free. But I find that tortoise-svn just eclipses anything else. The only benefit I find with a plugin is that new files get added to svn automatically.
So, weaknesses of your current system:
If you have to make a change to a file, you are likely to overwrite or be overwritten by the other dev's changes. You may not even notice this.
If you have to remember which files you've changed to copy them over some 'master' copy, you're likely to miss one at some point.
Good luck ever finding any documentation about when you made a change and why.
How could you ever build a stable automated build system on your current system? Cruise control and hudson work really well, you're hobbling yourself
VSS doesn't group changes to multiple files together very well. Everything modern does this extremely well and with atomic consistency.
VSS branch and merge support is awful. When we used it we ended up bracketing every change with comments in source code and manually copying code around rather than relying on VSS merge.
It's going to be very hard, near impossible in your current system, to have some version of the code in live maintenance and some other, later version, in heavy development. Think about what's needed to keep two projects in sync like this, you'll need a good tool. SVN can do it, git can do it really well.
That might be enough to go on with, can do more.
Having some version control system helps in any, many cases:
Single developer, single branch
The most basic task that each version control system has to perform perfectly if it wants to call itself version control is to be able to go back to specified version of a project. If you made mess of things, you can got to previous version. You can examine some previous version to check how it was done then (for example how it was before refactoring, or before removing some code/file).
Version control systems take much less disk space compared to simply saving backup copies with specified date, because they use deltaification (storing only differences from previous version) and compression. Usually backup systems are means to store last N versions of a project, sometimes with N=1 (only previous version) while version control systems (VCS) store all the history of a project. Knowing Murphy a while after deleting Nth last version you would realize that was the version you want to examine.
Additionally going back to some last version is easy and automated. You can also examine how single file looked like at some past version, and you can get differences (in diff format) between current state and some past version. You can also tag (or 'label') versions, so you can refer to past version not only by date, or by being nth version from current one, but also by symbolic name, for example v1.2 or v1.2-rc0.
With version control system you can examine history to remind you why (and how) some piece of code (some part of a given file) arrived at current state. Most VCS allow to examine line-wise history of a file, i.e. annotating each line of a file when it was changed, in what commit, and by whom (the command is named annotate, blame or praise depending on VCS). In some VCS you can search history for a version (revision) which introduced given fragment of code (e.g. called 'pickaxe search' in Git, one of VCS).
For this feature to be really useful you have to maintain some discipline: you should describe each new version (each new revision / each new commit) writing down why the change was made. Such description (commit message) is very useful, but it doesn't have natural place in backup system.
This feature of course is even more useful if you are not the only developer...
Using version control system allows for alternate way to find bugs in the code, namely by searching history to find version which introduced bug: bisectiong history. When you find revision which introduced bug, you would have limited (in best case: very limited) area to search for bug, because bug has to be in the difference betwen last working version and first version with a bug. Also you would have description of a change (a commit message) to remind you what you wanted to do. This feature is also called sometimes diff debugging. Modern version control systems (VCS) have support for automated (or semi-automated) searching the history by bisecting it (dividing history in half, finding which part contains bug, repeat until single responsible version is found), in the form of bisect (or similar) command.
For this feature to be really useful you have to maintain some discipline: you should commit (save changes / put given state in version control system to remember) single change, dealing with only one feature, with only small difference from the previous version; i.e. commit often.
Most version control systems offer various hooks which allow for example for automated testing, or automated building of a product... or simply reminding you that you do not follow coding standard (coding guidelines).
Single developer, multiple branches
Version control systems allow to create multiple alternate parallel lines of development, called branches (or streams, or views). Common case is having development branches, i.e. having separate branch for unstable development (to test new features), separate branch for stable (main, trunk) version which is (or should be) current working version, and one on more separate maintenance (fixup) branches.
Having maintenance branches allow you to do bugfixes and generate service packs / minor version with corrections to some released version, without need to worry about interference from the new development. Later you can merge maintenace branch into stable, or pick bigfix from maintenance branch into stable and development branches (if further/other development didn't fix bug independently).
Modern VCS (here modern means that both branching and merging branches is easy) allow to go a bit further, i.e. generate separate branch for working on a separate feature (so called topic branches). This allow you to switch between working one one feature to working on other feature (and not only switch from eveloping new feature to working on urgent requested bugfix).
If you are developing your product based on source of some other (usually third party) product, you really should use vendor branches to be able to easy integrate new version of a product from vendor with the changes you made. Admittedly this is no longer purely "single developer" case.
Multiple developers
Using version control systems brings even further advantages if there are more than one developer working on the same project. VCS allow for concurent (parallel) development without worrying that somebody would overwrite your changes, or does not take your changes into account. Of course using version control system is no substitute for communication.
All of the above features are even more important in the multiple-developer case: examining who generated given change, who last changed the code (aka. who broke the build), finding a bug in code not written only by you.
Simple: If the code is not in source safe, it doesn't exist
Subversion is free and better than VSS but VSS is definitely better then nothing.
Before you say anything, find out why your company is not using source control.
Once you know why, it is easy to come up with scenarios where source control can help.
Long discussion on why you should absolutely have source control:
Is Version Control necessary for a small development group (1-2 programmers)?
My comments from that thread:
You always, always want to have some
sort of Source Control even if you are
working on a project by yourself.
Having a history of changes is vital
to being able to see the state of a
codebase at any given time. There are
a variety of reasons for looking back
in a project history which range from
just being able to rollback a bad
change to providing support for an old
release when the customer just wants a
patch to fix a bug rather than
upgrading to a newer version of the
software.
Not having some sort of source control
is pure insanity.
As far as VSS goes - it's certainly better than nothing. It's definitely not the best source control and it's very dated, but the fact it that it continues to do the job for an awful lot of companies out there.
If your boss is determined to stick with Microsoft tools, go for Team Foundation Server instead of VSS. It's a much better system than VSS and it has nice features like integrated bug tracking.
Take it from me, VSS blows. It's basic file storage w/ history. Anything is better than VSS and VSS is better than nothing :)
So, can you guys tell me why
developers MUST use source control?
It provides one method for an entire
team to use; everybody operates under
the same 'ground rules'.
Changes are
orderly vs. chaotic, saving
development time.
The ability to track
changes promotes accountability and
makes it easier to find the right
persom to solve problems in the
materials maintained.
A list of exact
changes made can be generated quickly
and easily, making it easier to
advise users of the information on
how it has changed from version to
version.
It is easy to 'roll back' to
an earlier version of the
information, if a serious mistake was
made during a change.
Source Control is like insurance! You hope you never need it, but are glad you have it when you do!
Why do a formal presentation?
Assuming the team size is at least two, do a real-world example: Let two (or more, the more the better) people get the code, make their changes and show what it takes to integrate all those changes using whatever non source control means you use.
Then do the same scenario using the source control.
The amount of time and pain you save by using source control will speak for itself.
Stick to the bottom line, explain how it relates to money and your boss will probably listen.
If you are only one programmer, I'd say the main argument is the reduced chance that you will waste time (and therefore money) fixing simple mistakes, trying to rollback code that turned to be the wrong idea etc.
If you are more than one programmer then the above goes twice plus it's the only sane way to be able to work together on the same codebase without wasting even more time waiting for eachother,
Visual Source safe is better than nothing but there are free options that are better in almost every respect. If your boss needs a presentation to understand why source control is essential he might not care what tool you use once he has been enlightened. That you have experience with other tools and not vss again relates to the bottom line so that might suffice.
Why shouldn't your team adopt source control?
Even as a solo developer, I use source control. In a modern software development environment, I can think of few if any reasons why you would not use source control. It is more surprising that you don't already have it. The question strikes me as something like house painters asking "Why should we adopt the use of ladders. You know, ladders don't get the house painted - brushes do."
I'm really sorry but if you actually have to argue for [the formalization of] source control in a development environment, you're in a hopeless situation. If your boss actually needs to be convinced that source control is a worthwhile endeavor, your boss is simply not suitable to be a manager of a group of software developers. In order for someone to effectively manage, they really need at the very least a basic understanding of the landscape. I can't even imagine what's going to happen when you actually need to argue for something that's worth having an argument and doing a presentation over.
Developing without source control is like driving a car without breaks. You lose the ability to do seamless concurrent development, you lose your code getting backed up in working copies, you lose the ability to do historic research via code annotations, you lose the benefit of seeing the context and comments that accompany discrete changes, you just lose, period. Using source control is so obvious and has so many benefits, it's shocking that you'd have to justify it.
At work, we use subversion, but some developers (myself included) use Git locally via the git-svn bridge. For personal work, I use Git.
Because:
It will reduce costs - Developers will have to spend less time checking an item in/out of a real VCS than their current ad-hoc approach.
It will protect the organization's intellectual property - this should be the most important consideration for any software company (other than data...). You are payed to create software - shouldn't it be accessible in its entirety?
It will provide quicker, more reliable and straightforward backup mechanisms - all VCSs have built in dumping capabilities. These tend to be more mature than a simple file copy.
It will act as a communication mechanism between developers - depending on the version control system you may use comments/labels/checkout status to determine if someone else has worked on a file, if it has been promoted to production, if it has a corresponding support ticket number etc.
It streamlines development - the ability to compare versions of files as well as the other mechanisms will be beneficial to your company period.
The main reason we use version control is consistentency.
If the projects are not consistent then problems are going to occur and code is going to be lost.
Make sure you have buy in for the rest of the team. Maybe you can test your presentation on them? Hopefully, they see the need as well.
Nice to see good practices being initiated from the bottom up. Maybe everyone will be more likely to adopt the practice if it comes from one of their own instead of some management mandate.
To avoid things like
"Hey! What happens ? It worked yesterday."
The easiest way to convince management to invest Time in a SCCS is focus on backup and archival. By utilizing something like Subversion (SVN), you can restore any project to any point in time instantly. There is no need to have someone look through backup tapes or worry about tracking multiple versions in an obtuse directory structure.
There are obviously many other advantages (i.e. 2 people working on the same file at the same time), but backups are what quickly sold my company many years ago.
Others have mentioned the specific benefits of source control elsewhere, but I wanted to explicitly address the "VSS" portion of the question.
If your boss wants to use a Microsoft tool, Team Foundation Server with Team Suite is a very nice combination. It also has other tools included, such as bug tracking, documents, and reporting capabilities, which makes a nice platform on which to later improve your process. We are quite happy with it where I work, and my coworkers have told me horror stories about VSS.
Keep TFS in mind as a response to the 'Microsoft Tools' question.
We have a small 3 developer team that is currently using Subversion for our source control. We expect the team to group to 8 members within the next 6 to 12 months. We are considering changing our source control to either TFS or Mercurial for improved branching. I know TFS is overkill for just branching, but that is the immediate need, and the other features of TFS could aid our team. One of our main concerns with TFS is we've heard that there is a lot of overhead deploying it, especially on a small team. I'm hoping to get some community insight into just how much overhead there may be involved, suggestions to make the process easier, and anything else the community may feel is useful in making the decision to implement.
In my experience, TFS works really well, even for small teams. If your total number of developers is five or less, you can use the relatively affordable Workgroup edition: above that, you'll have to pony up for the real thing, pricing for which is definitely in the 'Enterprise' realm...
The biggest hurdle to starting to use TFS is installing the darn thing: this process seems to be designed for maximum aggravation. (The extent to which the 'designers' of the 2005-to-2008 upgrade 'process' despise their users even manages to go beyond that: fortunately, you'll be able to start with TFS2008 and won't have to worry about upgrading for a while).
If you follow the instructions exactly, you should manage in 2-3 tries, though, and the hardware requirements aren't as bad as they seem. My 3-developer TFS setup runs quite comfortable on a previous-generation Dell laptop with 4GB of RAM.
One of the big advantages of TFS is the VS integration: this works just really, really well, and shelving and branching are implemented in a more straightforward way than with any other systems I've seen.
The process guidance and support in TFS are a bit less polished, but still quite usable. The pluggable support for several development methodologies is quite nice, and several third-party add-ons (for example for Scrum) are available already.
All in all, it definitely won't hurt to try TFS: if you have a MSDN subscription, you probably already have the Workgroup edition as well as a trial of the full version: otherwise, you can downloaded the latter from Microsoft as well.
UPDATE, April 12th, 2010: With the release of Team Foundation Server 2010, the installation and upgrade procedures have improved a lot. A new TFS2010 install shouldn't take you more than a few minutes (assuming you already have an instance of SQL Server 2008 up and running) and even an in-place upgrade of my TFS2008 setup proved to be entirely painless.
Setup of TFS is not too complicated, when you exactly follow the given guide step by step. We are using it on a small team for about one year now and i don't want to miss it any more.
Especially when you use more than one part of tfs like version control and work item tracking and maybe even teambuild, your team will benefit of the tight integration of the seperate parts.
For example, you can link to workitems when checking in code changes.
Then you run an automated build with teambuild and it will automatically update your workitems with the build number.
So afterwards you can see for example in a bug workitem the buildnumber which contains the bugfix.
We also use the sharepoint wiki for documentation and planning although i'm not the biggest sharepoint fan...
The main point is the great integration into the IDE and for workitem tracking the Teamsystem Web Access which allows you to control at least your workitems over a webinterface.
It's been awhile, but I'm thinking that it takes about a half-day to get setup, plus some time reading the manuals beforehand to make sure you know what you're doing. Configuration doesn't take too long -- you need to add all of your developers in as licensed users. Setting up projects is not too hard. I usually set up AD groups to map on the project roles and add those groups to the appropriate roles. I set up a new project in about 1/2 hour.
Note: I don't use any of the features of TFS except source control. If you plan to item tracking, use the project sharepoint site, etc., your mileage will vary quite a bit. I've found that on our projects (2-3 developers) a wiki works just as well for project management.
Around here we have been working with a bunch of Visual Source Safe repositories for about 10 years or so.
Now I want to get rid of sourcesafe and move on to Team Foundation Server.
Do you have any tips or tricks for me before I embark on this migration? What are the things I have to be careful about?
I am sure this migration will mean that our working habits have to be modified in some way. Do you think that these changes could be a problem for the organization? Think about a group of about 20 .NET developers in a single site.
There are a few different ways you can migrate. The tool will pull your history, etc. over, but the more pragmatic and simple way is to lock VSS as a history archive and start fresh:
Have everyone check in all changes into VSS, make sure everything builds, etc.
Set all VSS databases to "locked" (read-only rights for all users)
Get Latest on the entire VSS database into a "clean" set of folders on a workstation
Check all of the files into TFS from the workstation
For any history prior to the conversion, folks need to go to VSS, but after a week or two it's realistically unlikely to happen all that often. And you know that the history in VSS is accurate and not corrupted by the conversion process.
Be aware that TFS does not support sharing files between different projects, as VSS does. If you have any such shared files the link between them will be broken during the migration, resulting in initially identical, but now distinct files in each project. Updates to one of these files in TFS will no longer propagate to the copies in the other projects.
If you do choose to use the VSSConverter.exe tool that ships with Visual Studio Team Foundation Server, then you should install TFS 2008 SP1 first as it includes a number of improvements as detailed on this blog by the migration tools team.
Some of the key features of the
release include:
Elimination of namespace conflicts. I
previously blogged about this as "the
rename problem" and we have fixed the
converter to correctly migrate files
with overlapping namespaces. This was
the biggest pain point for most users
trying to use previous versions of the
tool.
Automatic solution rebinding.
In this latest version, VS solution
files will be automatically upgraded
to the 9.0 version and checked back in
to version control. Previously users
were required to do this manually.
Correcting of timestamp
inconsistencies. The use of client
timestamps by VSS can lead to
revisions being recorded in the
opposite order that they actually
occurred in. The tool now recognizes
this issue and continues migrating
changes where it would previously
fail.
Improved logging. Although
we've fixed a lot of issues, providing
better, more detailed logging will
help users that do run into issues
diagnose the problems.
I just googled, but this walkthrough seems like a good reference, and it mentions the tool VSSConverter which should help you make the migration as painless as possible.
I would like to recommend one thing though: Backup. Backup everything before you do this. Should anything go wrong it's better to be safe than sorry.
My links aren't showing up. This is the address: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms181247(VS.80).aspx
We are currently in the process of doing this at my day job. We are actually making the switch over in about a month. I am a main part of the migration and a big part of why we are getting off of SourceSafe. To help in the migration, I used the Visual Studio® Team System 2008 Team Foundation Server and Team Suite VPC Image. It was very useful. Right off the bat, the image contains a full working TFS installation for you to play and demo with. It also includes Hands on Labs and one of the labs is running the VSS -> TFS migration tool. If you have an MSDN subscription, once you have played with the image, the next step would be to install the TFS Small Team edition that comes with your subscription.
One thing to note is to make sure you get the latest Service Packs for Visual Studio 2008 and the .NET Framework installed on the image. The service packs fixed some annoying bugs and it definately increased the usability of the system. We have a farely large SourceSafe database with about 90+ projects and the migration tool took about 32 hours to complete. First I made a backup of our sourcesafe database for testing. Then I made the migration on the test sourcesafe database. Afterwards, I checked the source tree in TFS and everything transferred fine. We kept all the history for our source files from VSS which was great. No need to keep that stinking VSS database around after we go live.
We are taking the migration in steps. First the source control and letting our developers get use to using it. Then after that we will be migrating the QA and Business Analysts over to use the Work Item tracking features.
My advice is to take the migration in steps. Don't do too much at one time. Give time for people who will be using the system to train up.
VSS Converter is a far from perfect solution. And there are significant differences between the 2005 and the 2008SP1 version of the converter.
For example, in a VSS DB that's been in use for a long time, there will have been a large number of users contributing to VSS. Many of these users will have left the organisation a long time ago and therefore will no longer have domain accounts. TFS requires mapping VSS users to domain accounts, so you will have to decide whether you map old users to a single 'dummy' domain account or to a current team member.
In addition, VSS Converter 2008 requires these domain accounts to be valid TFS accounts. Whereas the 2005 converter does not enforce this.
If your VSS history contains significant folder Moves, then it's likely you will loose all history before this Move. For example, if you Move a folder to a new location, then Delete the previous parent, you will loose all history. See this article for more explanation:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms253166.aspx
In one migration I was involved with, we had a 10 year old VSS database that lost all history prior to 6 months ago. This was due to a significant tidy up that took place 6 months ago.
TFS conversion tool <-- Use this
I've used this tool for some times already, the results are pretty satisfatory as it comes with the history of changesets from SourceSafe if you desire too.
Anyway, using this tool you should always pay attention to errors and warnings in the log, and check if everything built okay / passed okay.
It's recomended to also run an Analysis on SS before running this.
Hope it helps
Good guidance there from my former colleage Guy Starbuck. Another thing to add with that approach - you may have decided over time that you want to refactor the way your application is organized (folders etc) and this will give you an oppurtunity to do so.
I've been in situations where we organized a solution haphazardly without thought (let alone major changes in the application) which led to a desire to organize things differently - and the move from VSS to TFS is a great oppurtunity to do so.
As far as the original question:
And: this migration will for sure mean that our working habits have to be modified in some way. Do you think that this changes could be a problem for the organization? Think to a group of about 20 .net developers, in a single site
I would say - yes your working habits will change but much more for the better.
You no should use "Check-out" Locks and "Get-Latest on Check-out".
You can now effectively Branch and Merge
You will now have "Changesets" all files checked-in at the same time will be grouped together. This makes historical change tracking much easier - but more importantly - rollbacks are much easier (ie find all files checked in at the same time and roll them back)
Associating Check-ins to Work Items. Don't overlook Work Items! The biggest mistake you can make is to only use TFS as a VSS replacement. The Build and Project Management features are excellent - you paid for them - USE THEM!
As far as details on how your experience will change, another former colleague of mine (and Team System MVP) Steve St. Jean wrote a detailed article on the differences: From VSS to TFS
There are about 200 projects in cvs and at least 100 projects in vss. Some are inactive code in maintenance mode. Some are legacy apps. Some are old apps no longer in use. About 10% are in active development. The plan is to move everything to perforce my end of year 2009.
Has anyone done a large migration like this?
Has anyone come across best practices for moving from cvs to perforce? Or a similar migration. Any gotchas to look out for?
On the VSS side, there are conversion tools that are available to help with migration. They can mostly maintain version history (there are caveats that are explained in the readme and docs). I have migrated well over 50 VSS projcts into perforce using the VSS to perforce tool. Getting the data out of VSS can be a bit finicky and not terribly speedy, but it works. If you have direct access to the disks (i.e. not over a network share) to the VSS repository, the conversion can go much quicker. You can find information about the scripts here.
There is a simlar page for CVS to perforce conversion here, although I don't have direct experience with that. These links are good places to start. You can also search through the Perforce mailing lists at the Perforce Knowledge Base located here. I'm pretty sure that you might find some conversion information in the mailing list archives.
Migrate your old projects first. You can make sure that your process works. When we migrated active code to Perforce, I took one weekend and basically took down access to the servers and moved the code over to Perforce. Honestly, it was a pretty easy migration and when people came back on Monday they were ready to go. You might think about preparing your employees with Perforce cheat sheets after you start doing the migration.
The biggest gotchas might actually be preparing your people to use Perforce. Had I done it over again, I would have migrated our smaller active projects first and prepared smaller numbers of people to use Perforce at once. As it was, I had to train 120+ people on day 1 after the migration and that was a bit much. Also, make sure that you don't have 100+ people hitting your server for a fresh sync on day 1 either. We wound up taking our server down multiple times during the first few days. We used a windows 32 bit server which I would not recommend. We have a windows 64bit server now and it's much more robust. If you can, I would actually use Linux as your OS for your perforce server. Again, there should be good info on the Perforce site about performance.
I haven't had to do something of this scale, but I have a few ideas. First off, start by taking a small, unimportant project, and migrate that. That will give you an idea of how much trouble it is going to take to migrate the rest of the projects. Immediately after that you should choose a medium size project as there may be issues with migrating a larger project (say with branches) that might not be apparent on a small project.
Make sure you spend a bit of time seeing how easy it is to convert cvs projects to vss, or the other way around. If converting from vss to perforce is a real pain, you can convert vss to cvs, and then to perforce. Don't sink days into it, but it could back you out of a sticky situation. I think the key here is go incremental.
Backups are good. Period.
Consider a cutoff date, and any projects that are inactive, and older then that, should be mothballed. Check out the final revision and store that in Perforce. Do you really need 15 yearold visual basic code?
What ever you do, keep the old repositories in read-only mode some where.
Forgive my answering a question with a question, but doesn't Perforce provide tools for this? Or, at the very least, documentation? I'd be beating up my Perforce salesperson...
Consider not migrating dead and inactive projects. Simply put their repositories in read-only mode. The data will still be available if needed and you save the time effort of migrating them. Just migrate the 10% that are in use. Document the process thoroughly.
If one of the un-migrated projects gets resurrected some time in the future you can easily migrate it using your documentation as a reference.
We migrated our svn repository with a tool that we wrote, and just took the head revision of our starteam projects.
Watch out for differences between single-file checkins (CVS) and multi-file changesets (Perforce).
Watch out for branches is separate space (CVS) vs. branches in filepath-space (Perforce).