I was always wondering why it is a big deal having version control support inside an IDE.
I always preferred to use a command-line/standalone version of the version control of choice and never found IDE integration helpful.
I know it can be helpful sometimes, for example to automatically keep track of renames, but I was bitten by version control plugins a couple of times (especially the ClearCase Eclipse plugin) that I'm now finding it counter productive compared to the command-line version, where I have better control.
What is your opinion?
Integrated Source Control also helps to only keep the important files under Source control. For example, when I add a new File in Visual Studio, the Plugin (visualSVN) will allow me to add it easily without me having to remember to go outside of my IDE and run the command to add it to the repository. On the other hand, it will automatically ignore temporary files, like the obj/ and bin/ Folders.
Essentially: Integrated Version Control that actually works is a great way to keep the repository clean and complete.
I like how some IDE's implement this. Ankh-SVN for Visual Studio is not that great and is a bit buggy, however Subeclipse I find to work exceedingly well when I'm using Eclipse.
I think it really depends on the IDE you're using and the quality of that plug-in. It's going to work well for some setups and terrible for others.
That's why I like Subversion with Tortoise SVN so much. I can choose to use the IDE integration when and where it makes sense, otherwise, just like you said, I can simply use the command line or in my case, the windows explorer based client!
Integration of the IDE with version control and, in particular, software change management (SCM) helps bringing together the philosophies of the IDE and the source control system.
One example is temporary files and binaries, that should not be checked-in and, e.g. in Visual Studio, end up within the source directory if you're not carefully creating new project and solution templates with a non-default directory configuration.
Another could be tracking of work items and complex bug fixes.
Also it saves some ceremony and context-switching when editing files.
Advanced integrations may also allow to push the change management system's concept of "configuration" ("branch", "tag", "view") into the IDE.
ClearCase integration, however, is clearly not "advanced".
A lot of it is simply the preference and comfort level of the user. Some folks are comfortable with the command line. Some prefer a GUI.
I wouldn't make generalized assumptions that all version control within the IDE is bad or buggy based on experiences with a particular plugin which had issues.
Why even have an IDE? Why not just do everything with a command line? ;)
The answer is that having it integrated with the IDE is "better".
My #1 reason:
You can visually see if a file is checked out or not, and if you need to edit a file, you can take the action right there where you are working.
There are more, but that is the big one.
It's depend on your IDE and the way you work with VCS.
Me and my team using VSS plugin-ins inside Delphi IDE, it gives a lot of flexibable feature when working together for example, All our forms are check-in when you start to write a letter or move components it asked if you want to check-out the code file or form.
also when some one change any code in other forms, it pop up and telling you it's already update by someone else and asking you to update current files in your H.D.
and you just get everything while you are in the IDE, you don't need to move to other external file, or command prompt to do a simple task.
I find most people who like to deal with command prompt working mostly in code without GUI IDE or may I be wrong.
Nearly all of my subversion needs can be handled by the IDE interface. It's a lot faster to do 2 quick clicks than pop up a command line, cd to the right place, issue the command, etc.
Command line has it's place, but with the current crop of IDEs, that place continues to shrink.
I have battle scars from using a buggy implementation of an IDE/VCS integration. In all honesty, if it was not buggy it would have been great. As long as there are great tools like TortoiseSVN, I don't see a need for IDE/VCS integration. I'd rather have more tools that do their job well than a few buggy tools.
Version control support in an IDE generally gives you a better view. The IDE actually knows what type of file you are looking at when doing a diff, which means it can do context highlighting and help you do merges more effectively.
I also think it saves setup time. In stead of installing all kinds of tools, a developer can download the IDE, do a checkout an be on it's way. If every developer on a project uses the same IDE, they can help eachother.
"Counterproductive" is a large word. If you have serious CVS/SVN problems maybe once a month, it's still way to few to have complicated clients installed on all your dev machines.
I have both systems where there is an integrated IDE (Microsoft FrontPage against an IIS Development Web site with Visual Source Safe on all of the web content) and where there is not (java command-line development, Visual Studio Express Editions). An intermediate case that I use is jEdit 4.x with VSS integration via plug-in.
I think the integrated case is valuable for the reason it always is -- you don't have to leave your application to interact with source-control functions and you don't have to worry about remembering to add new files and to check out files before editing them. The ability to have a smooth work process and to minimize the risk of oversights is powerful, as far as I am concerned. Even when the IDE-plugin integration is less than perfect (the jEdit 4.x case), I still prefer it over not having it.
I also agree that having explorer integration on Windows, the case for Tortoise SVN, is also a great capability, even when IDE integration is available. This allows convenient operation without having to launch the IDE while also being able to launch from the explorer window into the IDE (depending on file type) or editor or make or whatever while operating in Windows Explorer.
And yes, the command-line interfaces remain valuable, especially for scripting of recuring-operation patterns.
I operate in many contexts. Having low barriers and fluidity of operation in all of them is to be prized.
I'm not sure I understand the question. IDEs by definition are integrated, meaning that they're supposed to help you avoid the need to get out of the environment for anything project-related. Version control obviously fits the bill.
If you're looking for more practical reasons, one is that IDEs can offer you awareness by the nature of their graphical presentation. Eclipse, for example, will present files and directories that have changed. With additional plugins or suites, you can ever get real-time awareness as soon as another user is editing the same file, helping you predict a merge conflict before it occurs. I'm not familiar with a commandline based mechanism.
I use intellij integrated with cvs on a regular basis and by far the best feature of the integration of version control inside the IDE is line-by-line indications of what is added, edited, or deleted along with easy access (mouse hover/tool tip) to the pre-edit changes.
This is all within the source code in a non-obtrusive way.
For the nuts and bolts of version control (checkin/checkout/update/etc) I sometimes use the IDE and sometimes use the command line.
The number 1 reason for an SCM integrated with the IDE is that it makes it more effortless to use it and eliminates the need to REMEMBER to check things out. Through experience I have seen that steps that developers construe as extraneous, which often encompases anything other than writing code, don't get done. Making them do extra steps increases the odds that developers won't bother with it and will work around the source control system
Related
We are starting on a new project and would like to know if we need store Ecipse IDE specific files (.settings, .project, .classpath) as part of our source tree. Should we ask each developer to create these files via the "mvn eclipse:eclipse" command or should we check it in for them. What would be the best practice here
We store them in Git, because we want every developer to work with the same environment. If you let every developer create their own project configuration, and have no other control about the configuration they use, you may end up with different configuration that leads to failures.
The major advantage of keeping IDE/environment configuration files in source control is to standardize your development environment.
Having a standardized environment confers several advantages:
Your environment and tool-set become familiar to all.
Common issues are well known and documented.
Easy learning curve for new developers (perhaps even a 'setup document').
Of course, there are also disadvantages:
By forcing your developers to code a certain way, you may be decreasing their productivity. For example, I'm most experienced with Eclipse. Sure, I could use NetBeans but I wouldn't be as efficient.
Developers may become less exposed to new tools/ideas/technology. For example, I use Eclipse primarily but I switch to NetBeans for profiling and IntelliJ for editing EJB configuration.
One of the better policies I've seen is "Hey, we're a Windows/Eclipse shop. You can use [insert your favourite OS/Tool/Technique here] if you like but you must be competent enough to fix your own problems".
This outlook seems to get the best of both worlds; the majority of developers will stick to the standard, document bugs, produce setup documentation etc. However, a small body of (usually senior) developers will go off and do their own thing, discover cool new tools and perhaps incorporate them into your standardized environment.
I'm looking for a subversion tool, and i have the following requirements:
Must integrate into VS 2008
Automatically submits new versions
Does not use the command line as primary interface
Doesn't clutter up explorer with bright icon overlays or context menus
is only going to be used by one user mostly if not completely, so doesn't need to have advanced diff tools or anything like that
Basically, i want a subversioning tool that will only bother me when creating a project or actually needing to get something from a previous version.
Does something like that exist, and if so, what is it?
Yes. VisualSVN (commercial)
Except for "automatically submits new versions" - that makes no sense.
The day computers know when your code is ready to be committed and free of bugs is the day the world needs a lot less programmers
You commit when you're done a task, which effectively gives you a rollback point. It's also important to add a meaningful commit message ("Fixed crash when clicking on Save button") - this way you can find things easily later. A lot of new users to version control skip this part, and unfortunately only learn the hard way 3 months later when they need to go back and undo a fix/feature.
AnkhSvn is a free alternative, I've personally only used 1.x, which was really quite terrible. It definitely looks more usable in 2.x.
One upside to VisualSVN is that it uses TortoiseSVN for a lot of its dialogs. This means when you're working with subversion just from explorer, you have basically the same interface and same UI. Quite handy, as it lets you do things like edit images or text files without having to fire up VisualStudio, or edit scripts/installers, or other parts of a product that are not necessarily in VisualStudio.
Yes, they are available.
The two I know of are VisualSVN and AnkhSVN. There are a bunch of comparisons available on SO
I use AnkhSVN myself. It is free, integrates nicely with Visual Studio, and doesn't cause any performance issues.
visual SVN is what you need.
Putting development tools (compilers, IDEs, editors, ...) and runtime environments (jre, .net framework, interpreters, ...) under the version control has a couple of nice reasons. First, you can easily compile/run your program just by checking out your repository. You don't have to have anything else. Second, the triple is surely version compatible as you once tested it. However, it has its own drawbacks. The main one is the big volume of large binary files that must be put under version control system. That may cause the VCS slower and the backup process harder. What's your idea?
Tools and dependencies actually used to compile and build the project, absolutely - it is very useful if you ever have to debug an issue or develop a fix for an older version and you've moved on to newer versions that aren't quite compatible with the old ones.
IDE's & editors no - ideally you're project should be buildable from a script so these would not be necessary. The generated output should still be the same regardless of what you used to edit the source.
I include a text (and thus easily diff-able) file in every project root called "How-to-get-this-project-running" that includes any and all things necessary, including the correct .net version and service packs.
Also for proprietry IDE's (e.g. Visual Studio), there can be licensing issues as this makes it difficult to manage who is using which pieces of software.
Edit:
We also used to store batch files that automatically checked out the source code automatically (and all dependencies) in source control. Developers just check out the "Setup" folder and run the batch scripts, instead of having to search the repository for appropriate bits and pieces.
What I find is very nice and common (in .Net projects I have experience with anyway) is including any "non-default install" dependencies in a lib or dependencies folder with source control. The runtime is provided by the GAC and kind of assumed.
First, you can easily compile/run your program just by checking out your repository.
Not true: it often isn't enough to just get/copy/check out a tool, instead the tool must also be installed on the workstation.
Personally I've seen libraries and 3rd-party components in the source version control system, but not the tools.
I keep all dependencies in a folder under source control named "3rdParty". I agree that this is very convinient and you can just pull down the source and get going. This really shouldnt affect the performance of the source control.
The only real draw back is that the initial size to pull down can be fairly large. In my situation anyone who pulls downt he code usually will run it also, so it is ok. But if you expect many people to pull down the source just to read then this can be annoying.
I've seen this done in more than one place where I worked. In all cases, I've found it to be pretty convenient.
I've personally always used some type of external application for my SCM work; these days, that means tortoiseSVN on windows and versions.app on the mac. However, I keep running up against developers (namely eclipse users) who argue that SCM is better done within the IDE itself. I've yet to hear any really compelling arguments in favor of this workflow, and I personally like a degree of "separation" between the IDE and SCM operations. This has been burned into me from using unstable SVN plugins in Visual Studio, and the sub-standard SVN support in Xcode in years past when working offline.
Which way promotes the better workflow in your opinion?
For basic operations - Check in Check out I like it right in the IDE, for anything much more advanced, (branch/merge) I prefer to use the external tools.
External tools seems to give better control/options in those circumstances. Your choices seem to be limited or non-existent when working directly in the IDE.
I definitely prefer outside. That being said, my primary IDE is Visual Studio, and I haven't used eclipse or intellij (although I have used cvs-mode in emacs...), so your mileage may vary...
Making changes and committing changes are separate tasks - having them both be easily available in the IDE means you don't clearly delineate between completing a set of changes and committing them. Quite often it's a case of type type type, compile, test, test, commit...'oh, wait - I forgot to foo the bar as well. Context switching from IDE mode to SCM mode tends to trigger the 'oh, wait' before the commit.
Keeping related files for commits together - it's all too easy to commit source changes, then remember the related SQL scripts and commit those separately and then add the new image files as you forgot those because they're new to the repository and so on.
Similar to the above, it tends to be a lot easier to commit things at the wrong level/directory in the repository when in the IDE. (e.g. I should have committed at solution level, not project level)
It tends to be easier to get a complete diff of your workspace against the repository outside the IDE, which is often worthwhile.
It also probably makes your IDE that extra bit faster
I also agree with a previous poster - all non-trivial SCM tasks tend to be easier outside development IDE integration.
To be honest, as long as you're avoiding messy commit situations described above, do whatever you find most comfortable. In terms of workflow - the separation has to be 'cleaner', whether this cleanliness outweighs the convenience is going to be in the eye of the beholder - we're largely reacting to our personal experience (I suspect mine is similar to yours).
Whatever you do, use anything but SourceSafe... I have to at the moment for legacy code - I find it abhorrent that files are made read only and that the SCM integration physically alters the contents of files...
One advantage to having the integration is in refactoring. If I renamed a class in Java (and thus the file name), your SCM integration would automatically handle the rename operation (a delete and then an add in svn, for example).
It also is very handy to be able to say, "show me the history of this file" or whatever while you are working on it, without having to drop to Windows Explorer or the command line or whatever.
But I like being able to have both available, honestly.
I almost always use external tools. The only exception is when I need to rename a source file. It is just so much easier for the IDE to update its project references at the same time.
It very much depends on the IDE/SCM combination. I'm currently using IntelliJ with SVN, and find that IntelliJ's SVN plugin is generally much more pleasant to use than Tortoise. Not that I have any particular complaints about Tortoise -- IntelliJ is just better.
Building should be possible without IDE so SCM should be possible without IDE.
On other hand, having IDE support the SCM can be convenient. It is nice to be able for example check the file history easily and maybe revert it.
I like internal SCM for.
Renaming files, rather than having to do the rename in the IDE and the SCM tools
Adding files to a project - see above
I find with an internal SCM it is less common for developers to forget to add new files to the SCM system.
For any complex operation, e.g. merge, branch, etc I tend to use an external SCM GUI or command line.
Our dev shop currently uses Visual SourceSafe. We all know how that could end up (badly), so we're investigating other systems. First up is Perforce. Does anyone have experience with using it and its integration into Visual Studio (2003/2005/2008)? Is it as good as any other, or is it pretty solid with good features, comparatively?
I used Perforce at my last 3 jobs (my current job I'm using Subversion, which I don't like nearly as much.) I'm a big fan of Perforce, and moving from SourceSafe it will seem like Nirvana. Just getting atomic checkin will be a big boost for your company. Otherwise, Perforce is fast, it has good tools, and the workflow is simple for doing things like merges and integrations. I wholeheartedly recommend it. It may not be all new and flashy like the latest distributed VCS's, but honestly, I prefer the client/server model for its speed, especially if you're working with people in other countries that may have slow connections to you.
The Visual Studio integration is pretty good, but it has a few irritating issues. If you run another Perforce client at the same time (like P4V), it's very poor at keeping changes from the other client in sync in terms of showing what files are currently checked in/out. You generally have to shut down Visual Studio and load the project again if you want it to sync correctly. But, the sync status doesn't actually affect checkins/checkouts/updates from working correctly, it just means you can be fooled in to thinking something is in a different state than it actually is while you're in Visual Studio. The Perforce clients will always show the correct status as they sync continually with the database.
Also, on occasion you'll find you need to work "offline" (not connected to the Perforce database for some reason) and when you load the project again the next time, your Perforce bindings may be lost and you'll have to rebind each project individually. If you work with a solution that contains many projects this can be a big pain in the patoot. Same goes for when you first check out a solution, binding to Perforce is needed before the integration occurs.
It's difficult to call $900 per user a good feature.
We used Perforce for well over a year before switching to SVN recently. While I did like the tools (for example, visual diff and merge and the admin bits), we had some really tiresome issues with binding, as Chris mentions; otherwise, the VS integration is satisfactory. If anything, I find working with SVN easier and more intuitive than Perforce. TortoiseSVN (the Windows Explorer shell extension) is great, and we bought a couple of VisualSVN licenses for VS integration. Contrary to Perforce, VisualSVN does not work with the MS SCC interface, but rather directly with the SVN client, which I personally see as an advantage. Perforce does have support for many other OSes, but our non-Windows devs feel more comfortable with SVN too. If I were to have to choose again, I'd stick with SVN.
Sourcegear Vault is the best SCM for migrating VSS users to.
And its cheap.
Perforce works fine with Visual Studio, including "offline" mode where VS will make your local files writable and sync with the server later.
I tend to use the Perforce GUI for many operations (submits, diffs) just because it's quicker/better, but the process of the IDE checking things out is seamless.
Perforce in my experience is rock-solid and the best mixed (code+data) version control product out their if cost is not a factor.
My biggest gripe is that the performance of the server under Windows is no where near as good as under *nix, and if you are using a *nix server they do not officially support the option for case-insensitive filenames (meaning you either forgo support relating to filesystem errors, or setup a trigger that prevents people adding foo.cpp if Foo.cpp exists).
My other main compaint is that for some common operations you have to revert to the command line, often piping functions together. One example would be getting a list of files in a directory that are not under source-control.
Both of these are issues that reflect more on the company than the product though. IMO Perforce know they're at the top of the market and thus see no reason to invest in fixing things like this.
I have experience using a Perforce derivative.
It seemed hard to manage from the admin's perspective, but it was fine to use from a programmer's perspective.
Then again, I'm big on command line version control so can't speak for VS integration.
I've used personally and managed a number of teams for a few years who have been doing Perforce & Visual Studio. It works perfectly well. There can be a couple of binding/rebinding gotchas, but these are generally easy to sort out - Perforce knowledgebase and/or the mailing list is a good source of info.
Never had any problems with using command line, visual clients, and VS IDe simultaneously - refresh normally works fine.
We use perforce extensively in the company, including branching for very large projects, development on Sun Solaris and Windows, and more than 120 users.
It is very fast, and the Windows GUI (P4V) is very nice. The Explorer integration is acceptable. I've disabled the VS integration, and use macros (calling e.g. p4 edit) to edit/revert/diff files. The VS integration is extremely annoying for large projects (our solution has >130 projects), but may work for smaller projects.
I haven't used Perforce, but I have found moving to Team Foundation Server as one of the best options while working with Visual Studio.