I recently joined a project team that is using TFS (I have happily avoided TFS until now). I am trying to determine if there is a way to require a story/defect reference to be associated with every commit comment?
With Tortoise/SVN it was easy to add a requirement for a reference number to be required with each commit. Personally, I like to track every commit back to a user story or defect, so I am hoping there is a way make this mandatory in TFS as well? I searched SO and Google, and haven't found the magic "key words", so if someone can point me in the right direction, it would be greatly appreciated.
Note: Stories and Issues are stored in other tools and not tied to TFS in any way.
Can it be done? Yes. Is it easy? Fairly easy. However, two caveats. Caveat number one: you're going to have to write code. Codeplex has some good examples here. Additional searches on codeplex and on the almighty Google will locate you more examples.
The big caveat here is that check-in policies are client-side. Once you develop the policy, it will need to be deployed to all developer workstations. If the policy isn't installed? It is ignored. While I'm a big fanboy of TFS, this is one oversight that I can't believe is still in place after three major version releases.
You could create a server-side check-in monitor that examines the check-in and determines if the story has been associated. However, it will not prevent the check-in, but you can use it to alert someone to resolve it after the fact.
Switch to a DVCS system like Git (see this article on pre-commit hooks) or Mercurial (see this other article on pre-commit hooks) which DO have server-side hooks that can be overridden to do validation checks. :-)
Yeah, I know, not really the answer you were looking for but it is an alternative solution to the problem that some other SO users might find useful.
With the DVCS type of system, you can have a separation between hooks that run on the local computer and hooks that run on the server when your commit is pushed back to the shared repository. That kind of concept does not have a corollary in TFS. It can make some things easier for your developers. For example, every changeset that was committed to our shared repository had to have a ticket number attached in the commit message. Local pre-commit hooks guarded against changesets getting created (in Mercurial) that did not have proper commit messages.
With TFS's support for GIT in an upcoming release maybe things will be easier in this regard.
Related
Currently we are using SVN.
I would like to start using GitHub, but one absolute requirement is that we will need to have precommit (premerge) validation of the code like we currently have. Does GitHub support precommithooks (premergehooks)?
We're a team of 5 developers. We made an agreement that all code (JavaScript) should pass JSLint-like validation. Voluntary validation has proven not to work because it's easily forgotten. How can we be sure that code that becomes available to the others is guaranteed to validate against JSLint (or similar)?
The concept I was looking for was the prereceive hook
I don't believe github supports pre-commit hooks. However, the git core does. You could set up the pre-commit hooks locally, or apply them as a test before merging branches into your main github.
I think you're missing something fundamental about git. It's not a centralized model (well ok, it can be, but if you're going to use it this way then github is probably the wrong approach). If you're using github, the right way to do this is:
Host your main repo
Have your developers each create their own fork
Let them happily hack away, committing and pushing to their heart's content
When they think a feature is ready, they send a pull request to you (the maintainer) which you yourself verify on the side to ensure stability. Then you merge / rebase their changes into the main repo.
Naturally there are many ways to skin a cat. But when you're talking about "real git" (the kind employed by the open source community), the centralized "check-it-in-and-it-damned-well-better-work" model is kind of difficult, especially when it comes to larger projects.
I think this article describes a very good workflow that could be a basis for automation:
http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html
The main idea is that you use pull requests as mentioned above, but you can also have a service that can use the github api to fetch or pull the branch making the request, merge, test, validate then push to the target branch.
No, GitHub doesn't support pre-commit hooks. How would that even work? Committing happens on your computer, do you really want to allow GitHub to run arbitrary code on your machine?
In out current project we are using VSS and SVN to keep track of the versions. For some reasons the developers in our site are not allowed to commit in them. So when many developers work with the same file, we run into versioning issues. It is very difficult to keep track of it. Can anyone suggest a version control system?
1. It should be light-weight.
2. We are going to manage individual files. Not whole projects.
3. It should have a GUI.
4. Learning curve should be reduced to a minimum.
Not sure if these are high expectations, but do let me know about your thoughts.
For multi-site development, a DVCS (Distributed Version Control System) is actually recommended because it allows:
private commit
"backup" publication (you push your branch which will then be mirrored in the remote repo, still as your branch: nobody will be impacted)
common publication: you push a common branch (which you have pulled first to take into account other commits)
That publication workflow (orthogonal to branching) really opens more possibilities in term of code management.
Pick one (Git, Mercurial, ...) and you have a valid solution to your issues.
To elaborate on VonC's answer a DVCS would allow all the off site devs to commit to one server but allow the onsite devs to control (by pulling) what is mergred into their controled branch/repo if they want.
i.e. if the onsite guys are scared of you commiting it is probably because they dont understand bracnhing and merging. and at the moment DVCSs are the kings of branch and merging
When working remotely, our team only has access to our source code by remote desktop into our office PCs so we never really work in offline mode. Does a distributed version control system like Mercurial or Git still give us advantages over our current centralized Subversion set up? If so, what are they? Are there any drawbacks or pitfalls? I've read in numerous places that shifting to distributed version control requires a change in thinking. Can someone explain what needs to change in this regard?
As explained in the differences between DVCS and CVCS (Centralized VCS), the main advantages are:
local commits (you can commit more often in private branches, then clean up the history you want to push to other repos)
publication process (you pull from multiple repos, or quickly established intermediate repos to push to, where you can do intermediate tasks like continuous integration tests)
That last point required the most "change in thinking" and is a bit scary ("I can pull from any repo?!")
But once you realize the benefits, you can really have more productive development cycles because you are able to monitor (by fetching commits from your peers) the development of some of your colleagues. If they are developing a function that you need, you can start integrating it sooner.
(The thing to remember with a DVCS is that is doesn't prevent the setup of a "central" repo, for other developers to pull from)
As for continuous integration, instead of pushing directly from your repo to a central server in charge of CI, you can push to a local repo on your desktop, which will run all the tests, before pushing automatically (if "green") the code to a "central" repo.
It is so effective that you can now push to the official central repo a code that "never breaks the build", rendering your CI server pretty much useless ;)
I would recommend HgInit as a very thorough explanation of just how svn is improved upon by a decentralized toolset. It will also help you to understand the conceptual differences.
One of the big improvements I'd like to emphasize is the notion of merge tracking. Subversion didn't have this feature at all until 1.5, and with the difference in the way it treats revisions and branches, it will probably never be as good as the decentralized tools can be. Nobody likes merges. Might as well reduce as much of that pain as you can. Also see: Why is branching and merging easier in Mercurial than in Subversion?.
The biggest change in thinking for me when making the switch from subversion was getting over the idea that history is strictly linear, and branching is nothing but copying code to another directory. Note that in Git and Mercurial, you don't checkout a subdirectory of the repository. You won't see 'git checkout http://github.com/project/branches/v2.0' or anything. Eric Sink wrote a really good explanation of the difference in the way the history is stored. I recommend taking a look.
The development machines might stand next to each other, but the source code is still distributed between them. That the machines are in close physical proximity really doesn't matter for managing source code changes made by different developers.
I'm wondering if there is any best practice for maintaining your source code under version control among different companies. In Open Source there is a maintainer, who receives patches, decides on them and applies them. But what about closed sourced projects where different companies get different workloads and just commit them to the trunk and branches? Is this maintainer concept applicable to a project on which multiple companies work on?
You can choose from a wide range of version control systems. (Not only subversion)
With the "versioning" concept you are safe that no one damages the project permanently.
So there is no need for a manual approval process, especially when there are contracts for example between the participating companies.
I'd also set up a commit mailinglist so you have some kind of peer review of changes. So no changes can be done without anyone noticing them.
If applicable set up some kind of continous integration environment to keep the quality up.
I don't understand the question about the branches. The decision whether to use them or not is IMHO not depending on the fact that the commiters are employed in the same company or not.
Its really up to you to decide which workflow works best for the companies involved. Subversion has the ability to add permissions to your trunk and branches allowing you to lock down certain parts of your repository to people who are "trusted" with merge access to trunk. You'll need good communication amongst the companies. Using the open source Trac provides a wiki, integrated RSS feeds of the commits to the project and code browser.
Usually, each site works on its dedicated branch and can import the other remote site branch, to decide what to integrate in its own work.
But if a site need to work directly on the other site branch, one possible practice is the concept of branch membership which allows only one site at a time to work on a given branch.
(not sure it is possible with SVN though)
That allows for two remote site (with a large time shift) to work on the same task in a tightly integrated manner.
My recommendation : subversion, with that configured you give away a url and then checkout, update, get things done and when you guess that the project is ready, snapshot and deliver.
I'm tasked with helping to set up the process templates and check-in policies for my company's TFS 2008 installation.
Aside from three check-in policies (a check-in action must have comments against it, a code file must be peer-reviewed, there must be a work item associated with a check-in), I have been asked to consider and implement any others.
What are some of the most important or useful policies to enforce for version control?
The fewer the better.
Usually in an organization you want to ease the friction of check-in to ensure that you are encouraging developers to make frequent small discrete check-ins rather than checking out a load of stuff at once. Then again you want to ensure that you have a working codebase for everyone who needs it and are capturing the data that you need to improve your software delivery process.
Personally, a policy to enforce changeset comments and a work item association policy are ok - as they capture meta-data that is very easy to remember at the time but hard to find afterwards. It also encourages developers to get into the habit of having a work item to track all pieces of work - even experimental development or spikes.
The peer review process might be better performed using branching or another process rather than forcing a peer review on every check-in - however that depends on your process. Remember as well that you can have mandatory check-in notes in TFS to capture meta-data such as code reviewer. A check-in note is slightly different to a check-in policy and is often confused.
If you want read more discussion about check-in policies, take a look at a blog post I did on the balancing act a while ago. Also to hear some more discussion about check-in policies, I recorded a podcast recently with a fellow Team System MVP talking about their use of TFS and it might be interesting (Radio TFS, Using TFS with Ed Blankenship). Finally we also did a Radio TFS episode all about check-in policies in 2008 that might be of interest.
Don't break the build! Of course, finding an automated way to check on that and reject the check-in are the challenge.
Some rules that we follow in our company:
Commit all changes related to the same task at once (that will help review the changes and future rollbacks or merges if needed).
template based comments (eg: prefix all comments with a code that represents what was done, + for adds, - for removes, * for updates, ! for important modifications, etc).
Obviously always check-in code that compiles, and finished work to the main-line.
check-in daily unfinished work to branches.
The ones we use where I work on TFS are:
Code Analysis
This ensures that all the code was compiled on the devs machine before it was checked in
Work Item Association
If you've done a change there should have been an assigned task!
Last Build Successful
Using the TFS Build Server to check that the current code in source control compiled on an independant machine
Check In Comments (part of the TFS Powertools - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/teamsystem/bb980963.aspx)
It's good to be able to see a summary of the check in without having to go to the work item(s)
Try to keep the number of developers working on the same branch small. That way the branch stays stable with respect to compilation, the unit tests, and regressions. It's a nightmare if a developer does a check in which compiles but his code breaks a key area of the application (such as login).
If you really have to have more than 10 developers checking code into the same branch, we've started an email policy where the developer checking in warns everyone that they're checking in, so that no one attempts to update their copy of the branch in the midst of a check in. Sometimes, we've had to have the converse, where we set aside an time in the date to prohibit check ins, so that updates are safe.
Frankly, the less policies, the better. The more policies you have, the greater the incentive for NOT using version control. What happens then is:
Code is developed on parallel, uncontrolled source control systems, and just the final revision goes to the official one.
People delay committing as much as possible, decreasing visibility of what they are doing to other developers.
People will actually avoid committing something if they can get away with it, and some will find a way to get away with it.
In fact, I think your three check-in policies are already too much. For instance:
Having code being peer-reviewed before check-in makes it much more difficult to have work-in-progress stored there. Instead, if the source control system allows it (and many do), control whether the source is peer reviewed or not. With some systems you can create a life cycle for a revision, with others you might create branches, and still others you might use tags.
Having a work-item associated with a check-in makes it impossible for developers to do exploratory programming, or having initiative on possible improvements. It stifles the developers. Instead, make sure that any revision going into integration tests or user acceptance tests, not to mention production itself, is associated with a work item.
This might sound anti-Enterprise, but it's just some things we have learned in a few decades of software development. Most enterprise organizations haven't been clued in to this, but, eventually, they will. So, you might go the very opposite way, but don't say no one ever told you.
I recommend the Agile Manifest, and, particularly, Lean Software Development for general principles.
Or, taking Stack Overflow design philosophy into account, make the system reward the behavior you want.