Has anyone switched to Team System? Will you?
-
no, it isn't, but i don't really like the way this integration is implemented so i avoid using it. i prefer to do it using tortoiseSVN[^] which is nicely integrated into explorer (unfortunatelly, in Total Commander it doesn't show the icon overlays). however, you can try ankhSVN[^] which integrates SVN with Visual Studio.
By properly configuring total commander you can get overlay icons showed as in explorer. Just look for it (it took half an hor for myself). Sorry but not being more explicit but I am at home right now. We are using svn + tortoise + ankh Ankh is good for cheking if files has been modified from MSVS but ussually we commit from svn because it covers all the files and not only the files in MSVS.
-
My company tried Team Foundation Server (with VSTS) for source code control. We had been using VSS and SOS. We ultimately decided not to use TFS for source code control. You can see some comments about why at the MSDN forums. (For example, see http://forums.microsoft.com/MSDN/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=267779&SiteID=1) Basically, TFS is way overpriced, demanding to deploy and administer (in spite of testimonials that it is a good fit for small teams, I would have to disagree), and buggy. However, MS did just annouce a service pack. I assume that will solve most of the bugs that we encountered. Once we decided against TFS, we evaluated Vault and Subversion, and we looked at quite a few more. It ended up being a real toss up between Vault and Subversion. These were the two clear winners. Subversion is nice because it is a "standard" in the open source community. Vault is nice because it is easier for someone moving from VSS, it is more flexible in terms of setup/deployment on our servers, and it uses MS SQL for the data. We ended up going with Vault at work. For my personal projects, I could have chosen Vault (because a 1 user license is free), but I decided to use Subversion because that's what everyone in the open source community is using. If the TFS service pack solves the bugs and if your company has the money and has a sys-admin, then TFS would not be a bad choice. It is very feature rich. Starting with DotNet, I became a huge Microsoft fan and my company became a 100% MS shop. However, starting with VS 2005 (more bugs than VS 2003!), the new MSDN pricing, the new licensing schemes, etc., we have started questioning whether we will continue to be a 100% MS shop. Something seems to have changed at MS, and we don't like it. I'm going to start moving more in the direction of open source tools. If Sharp Develop gets an integrated debugger, we'd even give that a look.
Thank you very much for a valuable comment. I must say I have similar feeling about using MS development tools. I have been a big fan of MS tools, and became even bigger fan since MS released .NET. However, while loving Visual Studio 2005 and .NET 2.0 (I don't think VS 2005 is more buggy than VS 2003, in fact for switching to VS 2005 was a relief because of MsBuild and building Web projects on build server), I don't like the way the move to VSTS has been done. Not just becuase of pricing, because of some really stupid decision to sacrifice common sense for the sake of potentially making more profit. Just the fact Microsoft did not include unit testing in VS Professional shows bad attitude. And all those editions - if you want test tools, you won't get diagrams. Looks like marketing folk decided the content of the product. I also think both Vault and Subversion can be good choices for us. We should have a closer look at them and do some evaluation. Thanks again. Вагиф Абилов MCP (Visual C++) Oslo, Norway If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. Jack Handey.
-
Hello, We have been planning purchase of Microsoft VSTS for a long time, mostly to improve the following: 1. Better management of development process (bug tracking, task assignment etc.) 2. Finally get rid of SourceSafe (that will be such a relief!) 3. Implement continuous intergration with unit testing and coverage. 4. Use MsBuild for continuous build and deployment of our applications. Being a MS Gold Certified Partner, we can better license prices, although VSTS is still fairly expensive. But the more I work with VS 2005 (non-VSTS version), the more I question if we really need to go for full VSTS/Foundation Server package. My concerns: 1. Microsoft is not using NUnit for unit tests, they use their own attributes. It means we will have to edit a lot of test code, and it will no longer be NUnit-compatible. 2. Like NUnit, there is an open source tool NCOver that provides good code coverage analysis. 3. We have already used MsBuild to customize our development process. Continuous integration can be implemented on the top of MsBuild without use of Team System. I feel that the main reason to upgrade that is we have now is to start using SQL-based version control system. But there are other (and cheaper) alternative like SourceVault. Did anyone have similar concerns? What did you decide? Do you regret? Thanks in advance Вагиф Абилов MCP (Visual C++) Oslo, Norway If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. Jack Handey.
Have you taken a look at SourceForge Enterprise edition? It's free for upto 15 users and comes packaged as a VMWare virtual machine so you can download and have it running very quickly. Like the the real Sourceforge has a web UI so its good for distrubuted teams. Like SourgeForge it supports CVS and SVN as scc, bug tracking, forums, package release and so on. It doesn't do the continuous integration stuff but we do that anyway using NAnt. It doesn't integrate with VS.NET but we use Tortoise for SVN anyway.
-
Hello, We have been planning purchase of Microsoft VSTS for a long time, mostly to improve the following: 1. Better management of development process (bug tracking, task assignment etc.) 2. Finally get rid of SourceSafe (that will be such a relief!) 3. Implement continuous intergration with unit testing and coverage. 4. Use MsBuild for continuous build and deployment of our applications. Being a MS Gold Certified Partner, we can better license prices, although VSTS is still fairly expensive. But the more I work with VS 2005 (non-VSTS version), the more I question if we really need to go for full VSTS/Foundation Server package. My concerns: 1. Microsoft is not using NUnit for unit tests, they use their own attributes. It means we will have to edit a lot of test code, and it will no longer be NUnit-compatible. 2. Like NUnit, there is an open source tool NCOver that provides good code coverage analysis. 3. We have already used MsBuild to customize our development process. Continuous integration can be implemented on the top of MsBuild without use of Team System. I feel that the main reason to upgrade that is we have now is to start using SQL-based version control system. But there are other (and cheaper) alternative like SourceVault. Did anyone have similar concerns? What did you decide? Do you regret? Thanks in advance Вагиф Абилов MCP (Visual C++) Oslo, Norway If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. Jack Handey.
:cool:We are using svn + tortoise instead of Source safe. Very easy to implement and less headache than cvs. After looking at all the installers, we are using NSIS (Nullsoft install system / winamp). We don't have need to generate delta's or upgrades since we host the app and only one version at a time. We are just trying to lighten the load for the IT guys. The scripting language is a bit strange, but light weight. We are using CCNET + MBUnit for continous integration testing. This was difficult to get going since we didn't easily fit into the scenarious described in the texts. Seems vastly superior to ant/nant/anthill. At the end of the day, very nice tool and with a bit more knowledge it would gone a bit faster (Thanks to jflowers / cifactory). We are using selenium + ruby for the web ui unit testing and looking at fit runners / adapters for the smart client. We are just headed down that road and don't know much yet. David Strickland / VP Software Development / Swingvote
-
By properly configuring total commander you can get overlay icons showed as in explorer. Just look for it (it took half an hor for myself). Sorry but not being more explicit but I am at home right now. We are using svn + tortoise + ankh Ankh is good for cheking if files has been modified from MSVS but ussually we commit from svn because it covers all the files and not only the files in MSVS.
Thanks David, i will have a look but i would appreciate any hint :)
-
Thanks David, i will have a look but i would appreciate any hint :)
ok, answering myself: http://tortoisesvn.sourceforge.net/?q=node/32 but only for v6.5 and higher
-
Hello, We have been planning purchase of Microsoft VSTS for a long time, mostly to improve the following: 1. Better management of development process (bug tracking, task assignment etc.) 2. Finally get rid of SourceSafe (that will be such a relief!) 3. Implement continuous intergration with unit testing and coverage. 4. Use MsBuild for continuous build and deployment of our applications. Being a MS Gold Certified Partner, we can better license prices, although VSTS is still fairly expensive. But the more I work with VS 2005 (non-VSTS version), the more I question if we really need to go for full VSTS/Foundation Server package. My concerns: 1. Microsoft is not using NUnit for unit tests, they use their own attributes. It means we will have to edit a lot of test code, and it will no longer be NUnit-compatible. 2. Like NUnit, there is an open source tool NCOver that provides good code coverage analysis. 3. We have already used MsBuild to customize our development process. Continuous integration can be implemented on the top of MsBuild without use of Team System. I feel that the main reason to upgrade that is we have now is to start using SQL-based version control system. But there are other (and cheaper) alternative like SourceVault. Did anyone have similar concerns? What did you decide? Do you regret? Thanks in advance Вагиф Абилов MCP (Visual C++) Oslo, Norway If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. Jack Handey.
We did! My number one reason was to have a better tracking of the development process. We were already using MS flavor of NUnit (the switch was very simple). We appreciate the much better source code management. Gabriel
-
Have you taken a look at SourceForge Enterprise edition? It's free for upto 15 users and comes packaged as a VMWare virtual machine so you can download and have it running very quickly. Like the the real Sourceforge has a web UI so its good for distrubuted teams. Like SourgeForge it supports CVS and SVN as scc, bug tracking, forums, package release and so on. It doesn't do the continuous integration stuff but we do that anyway using NAnt. It doesn't integrate with VS.NET but we use Tortoise for SVN anyway.
Thanks for an advice Bill! I haven't heard about SourceForge Enterprise, but now I am looking into it. Вагиф Абилов MCP (Visual C++) Oslo, Norway If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. Jack Handey.
-
:cool:We are using svn + tortoise instead of Source safe. Very easy to implement and less headache than cvs. After looking at all the installers, we are using NSIS (Nullsoft install system / winamp). We don't have need to generate delta's or upgrades since we host the app and only one version at a time. We are just trying to lighten the load for the IT guys. The scripting language is a bit strange, but light weight. We are using CCNET + MBUnit for continous integration testing. This was difficult to get going since we didn't easily fit into the scenarious described in the texts. Seems vastly superior to ant/nant/anthill. At the end of the day, very nice tool and with a bit more knowledge it would gone a bit faster (Thanks to jflowers / cifactory). We are using selenium + ruby for the web ui unit testing and looking at fit runners / adapters for the smart client. We are just headed down that road and don't know much yet. David Strickland / VP Software Development / Swingvote
Wow! Another alternative for us. Thanks. BTW, is there any advantage of using MBUnit vs. NUnit? What about code coverage tools. Do you use any? Вагиф Абилов MCP (Visual C++) Oslo, Norway If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. Jack Handey.
-
We did! My number one reason was to have a better tracking of the development process. We were already using MS flavor of NUnit (the switch was very simple). We appreciate the much better source code management. Gabriel
You are actually the first one who said you switched to VSTS. I was almost losing a hope :-) I still have painful feeling about MS flavour os NUnit. Looks like after we convert thousands of unit tests, there will be no return. Вагиф Абилов MCP (Visual C++) Oslo, Norway If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. Jack Handey.
-
Wow! Another alternative for us. Thanks. BTW, is there any advantage of using MBUnit vs. NUnit? What about code coverage tools. Do you use any? Вагиф Абилов MCP (Visual C++) Oslo, Norway If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them. Jack Handey.
MBUnit vs NUnit.... The big difference for me was the ability to have data driven test cases. I have an xml file that drives the test . There is an attribute in MBUnit that will serialize an xml node (or collection through iteration) into a c# object. The object is a param to the test case. I would say most (if not all) nunit tests are parameterless. This allows me to cover all the corner cases with a single piece of code, but run different data through it. NCover works with MBUnit as does NUnit. If you have not looked at testdriven.net, you should. It allows you to run quite a few different types of tests interactively from visual studio.net.