Team Foundation Server vs Visual Source Safe
-
I'm not sure this is the right place to ask this question. We are currently using Visual Source Safe and VS 2002/2003. We are looking to upgrade to Visual Studio 2010. I need to know if Visual Source Safe will work with VS 2010 or do I need to move to Team Foundation Server? And does Team Foundation Server come with VS 2010? And what are the pros and cons of using one over the other? And before any one suggest a different version control software package, that is not an option. I work for a university and with our licensing agreement I have to go with one or the other. Thanks, Carolyn
If you can’t have fun at work, then why go to work?
TFS also provides change control management with project templates supporting Agile development, and quite recently Scrum specifically. TFS requires SQL Server and to get the maximum benefit from TFS, especially to support change control, will require Analysis Services and Reporting Services, and if available, Sharepoint. TFS goes a long way to fully supporting ALM. We have recently moved our source control from Subversion to TFS, and as well as moving change control to TFS with our upgrade of our MSDN subscription to VS 2010. We were pleasantly surprised at the capability of TFS.
-
I'd strongly urge looking at other (often free) alternatives like Subversion. Subversion has strong support in Windows - Tortoise SVN provides explorer shell integration and Ankh SVN provides Visual Studio integration.
As he said, he needs to stick to MS solutions. FWIW, where I worked changed from VSS 6 to SVN, and SVN sucks. While I can use it, and have to, it is nowhere near as productive (i.e. less time consuming) as VSS2005. SVN seems to me to be an almost-there solution that was written for C programmers who each reside in their bunkers with nothing else to do but write code in vi or some other text editor. I'd recommend VSS2005 at a minimum, perhaps while implementing and learning TFS to replace it.
-
Perhaps you didn't read the OP closely enough, "And before any one suggest a different version control software package, that is not an option." Your answer is a useless waste of time.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
But SVN is free. I can't see how any kind of licensing agreement could forbid you from using free stuff.
-
But SVN is free. I can't see how any kind of licensing agreement could forbid you from using free stuff.
Free doesn't mean it won't cost. Some organizations don't allow these tools because of the maintenance and support headaches that come along with them, often a dedicated resource is maintained to support these "free" tools. Some don't allow open source because of security restrictions. Further still some organizations are locked into an agreement where by they get discounts on other products for using another from that vendor. Your comment is very naive. Free isn't always better or the answer to everything.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
-
Free doesn't mean it won't cost. Some organizations don't allow these tools because of the maintenance and support headaches that come along with them, often a dedicated resource is maintained to support these "free" tools. Some don't allow open source because of security restrictions. Further still some organizations are locked into an agreement where by they get discounts on other products for using another from that vendor. Your comment is very naive. Free isn't always better or the answer to everything.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
Your comment is a strawman. I never said it was better or the answer to everything. I am just suggesting that it is probably not against any license agreements to use SVN. And if it is, I would seriously reconsider said agreement. I don't know anything about the security restrictions at the OP's university. I do know that SVN is approved for use where I work, which has an extremely restrictive security policy (Government related). I thought your original flaming comment and a 1 vote was quite the over-reaction for what seemed to be a legitimate attempt to help. In the context of the OP's post (selective quoting notwithstanding), sugesting an open source, free alternative wasn't a "useless waste of time". I have used VSS and SVN. I like them both and find they have very similar features.
-
Your comment is a strawman. I never said it was better or the answer to everything. I am just suggesting that it is probably not against any license agreements to use SVN. And if it is, I would seriously reconsider said agreement. I don't know anything about the security restrictions at the OP's university. I do know that SVN is approved for use where I work, which has an extremely restrictive security policy (Government related). I thought your original flaming comment and a 1 vote was quite the over-reaction for what seemed to be a legitimate attempt to help. In the context of the OP's post (selective quoting notwithstanding), sugesting an open source, free alternative wasn't a "useless waste of time". I have used VSS and SVN. I like them both and find they have very similar features.
Rick Shaub wrote:
I am just suggesting that it is probably not against any license agreements to use SVN
Of course using open source is not against any license agreement, it would be illegal. However, vendors do push for exclusive contracts that prohibit the use of other tools. You again appear naive in relation to such matters.
Rick Shaub wrote:
I don't know anything about the security restrictions at the OP's university.
Then you really can't comment and a reference to your organization is an irrelevant attempt at self-importance.
Rick Shaub wrote:
sugesting an open source, free alternative wasn't a "useless waste of time".
When the OP expressly stated using another tool was out of the question, then yes, suggesting one is a waste of time. Since the response did not provide any useful information and did not comply with the OP's request is was a bad answer and the vote is justified. Thanks for playing. Run along now.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
-
I'm not sure this is the right place to ask this question. We are currently using Visual Source Safe and VS 2002/2003. We are looking to upgrade to Visual Studio 2010. I need to know if Visual Source Safe will work with VS 2010 or do I need to move to Team Foundation Server? And does Team Foundation Server come with VS 2010? And what are the pros and cons of using one over the other? And before any one suggest a different version control software package, that is not an option. I work for a university and with our licensing agreement I have to go with one or the other. Thanks, Carolyn
If you can’t have fun at work, then why go to work?
FYI... just in case you decide to use Source Safe 2005 with VS2010 you will need a hotfix: http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/KB976375[^]
-
Rick Shaub wrote:
I am just suggesting that it is probably not against any license agreements to use SVN
Of course using open source is not against any license agreement, it would be illegal. However, vendors do push for exclusive contracts that prohibit the use of other tools. You again appear naive in relation to such matters.
Rick Shaub wrote:
I don't know anything about the security restrictions at the OP's university.
Then you really can't comment and a reference to your organization is an irrelevant attempt at self-importance.
Rick Shaub wrote:
sugesting an open source, free alternative wasn't a "useless waste of time".
When the OP expressly stated using another tool was out of the question, then yes, suggesting one is a waste of time. Since the response did not provide any useful information and did not comply with the OP's request is was a bad answer and the vote is justified. Thanks for playing. Run along now.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
I know you're a "site supporter" and all, but as far as I know, the "insults not welcome" rule applies to everyone. BTW- I think the "self-importance" dig was a bit of projection.
-
I know you're a "site supporter" and all, but as far as I know, the "insults not welcome" rule applies to everyone. BTW- I think the "self-importance" dig was a bit of projection.
Insult? What insult? In addition to being naive you are also very thin skinned. The childish down-voting is not welcome here either.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
-
Insult? What insult? In addition to being naive you are also very thin skinned. The childish down-voting is not welcome here either.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
Mark Nischalke wrote: Insult? What insult? In addition to being naive you are also very thin skinned. This insult: "And before any one suggest a different version control software package, that is not an option." Your answer is a useless waste of time. Mark Nischalke wrote: The childish down-voting is not welcome here either. I think voting is welcome here. Read the rules.
-
Mark Nischalke wrote: Insult? What insult? In addition to being naive you are also very thin skinned. This insult: "And before any one suggest a different version control software package, that is not an option." Your answer is a useless waste of time. Mark Nischalke wrote: The childish down-voting is not welcome here either. I think voting is welcome here. Read the rules.
Rick Shaub wrote:
Your answer is a useless waste of time.
Not an insult. A statement of opinion. Voting is welcomed and appreciated. Childish, retaliatory down voting is not. Now, again, run along and let the adults talk.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
-
Your comment is a strawman. I never said it was better or the answer to everything. I am just suggesting that it is probably not against any license agreements to use SVN. And if it is, I would seriously reconsider said agreement. I don't know anything about the security restrictions at the OP's university. I do know that SVN is approved for use where I work, which has an extremely restrictive security policy (Government related). I thought your original flaming comment and a 1 vote was quite the over-reaction for what seemed to be a legitimate attempt to help. In the context of the OP's post (selective quoting notwithstanding), sugesting an open source, free alternative wasn't a "useless waste of time". I have used VSS and SVN. I like them both and find they have very similar features.
... and continuing to argue about this point is an even bigger waste of time.
-
Rick Shaub wrote:
Your answer is a useless waste of time.
Not an insult. A statement of opinion. Voting is welcomed and appreciated. Childish, retaliatory down voting is not. Now, again, run along and let the adults talk.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
Strawman arguments, selective quoting, and bullying are just lame. You should be ashamed of yourself. You can tell me to "run along" again if you like, because I'm done trying to have a civil discussion with you.
-
Strawman arguments, selective quoting, and bullying are just lame. You should be ashamed of yourself. You can tell me to "run along" again if you like, because I'm done trying to have a civil discussion with you.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: ;P
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
-
VS2010 will work with VSS. TFS does not come with Visual Studio, it is a separate server that VS connects to via the Team Explorer. As for the pros and cons of each, that would entail a long and, for some, hated debate. There is plenty of information available that describes TFS. Essentially though if you have a small team of developers, three or less, then VSS will probably work best for you. However, if you want to including continuous integration builds, work item tracking, etc. then TFS is the tool.
I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt
PMFBI but I can offer some thoughts as one who manages a small development team, and has used TFS and VSS for several years. We use VS2008 Team System for developing and maintaining a fairly large project (>1million lines of C# code) and VSS for maintaining 'legacy' projects, because that's where they started off. TFS brings much more than source control. On that feature alone it is far superior to VSS (I can't speak for CVS, SVN etc because I haven't used them). In my experience VSS is fine for smaller projects, and where you can ensure that only one developer at a time ever works on a file. With a big project that is often inconvenient and not easy to regulate (and why should you have to?) and TFS's far superior checkin/merge facility helps manage that relatively safely. Given the chance, of the two I would use TFS source control for any non-trivial project employing more than one developer. TFS also brings programmed testing (MSTest unit testing and we also use Selenium), test code-coverage, integrated bug and task tracking, integration with Sharepoint for project documentation control and publishing, and the biggie for me is automated builds. It took us a while to get to where we are today, but I wouldn't be without our CI and nightly build/test/document process. Several times a day and every morning I get an email confirming that all is well, or early warning that something has unexpectedly broken. It's not perfect because you can never have enough tests, but I sleep much better at night as a result. :-) That is not to say that TFS and VS20008 are without their problems. Check-in merges (and branch merges) can get confused and you have to keep your eye on the ball when you do it, but you do get the option to select individual differences if you want complete control. I have found that frequent 'gets' to keep the local copy up to date together with frequent check-ins of changes is a good way to proceed with multiple developers on the project. In other words don't let server and local code drift too far apart, to keep the risk small. The bug/task tracking facilities could be usefully improved (reporting, especially, is a bit clunky - was it designed by the office junior?). VS2008 itself struggles with largish applications and can often 'lose' the various tools such as call-stack, watch windows etc, which for no apparent reason will be blank panes. Frequent restarts of VS2008 are essential, we find, to correct this. It seems to be a memory thing, and we are at the 4Gb limit already on our workstat