Is there a white paper explaining why Team Foundation Version Control sucks ?
-
And yet the WinForms GUI builder was so successful that other companies (like PowerBuilder) tried to copy it. It has successfully made Windows apps, including complex ones, to this day. It isn’t that it can’t be done - it has already. It is that it has not been tried with a team capable of the same level of quality and excellence as Alan Cooper and his team had.
-
So then I didn't get it backwards... which means we clearly have a breakdown in communication here.
Jeremy Falcon
Yes, you still don't understand what a Label is in TFS or what a Class is in CMS.
-
FYI Power Builder predates even Visual Basic (codename Thunder) which means it almost predates the public internet. I worked on a PowerBuilder 2.0 project talking to a DB running on OS/2! It had form inheritance/templating at that version. Circa 1991.
PowerBuilder did not have a GUI builder anything like VB. Only after VB was out, did PowerBuilder create something similar. In fact, when I worked for the State of Florida, we were deciding on what tools to use for Windows application development for our agency. In the PowerBuilder presentation, the presenter stressed several times how PowerBuilder was like VB for building Windows forms. We looked at both equally, but VB was more advanced in terms of language and the GUI builder. That was a long time ago. The point today is the lack of a GUI builder for VS2022 that has the productivity for XAML and HTML/CSS that it has for WinForms.
-
Yes, but Visual SourceSafe had an option to store only the most recent version of a binary file, which was a great feature.
Since VCS (Verson Control Systems) are meant to store diffs between files... what would the point of storing?...
DavidPendleton wrote:
only the most recent version of a binary file
Isn't that the same as storing the latest binary file which is already simply stored in the file system? I'm curious about this. thanks
-
Yes, you still don't understand what a Label is in TFS or what a Class is in CMS.
So, you're saying the dude in the video is wrong as well? Because I'm not hearing anything substantial exept you saying "I'm wrong" when to be honest I don't think you know what I'm saying. I've cited three sources saying what a label is and presented several ways you can achieve what you're after in git. I haven't used TFS in a looooooong time, but that doesn't I'm incapable of understanding. Side note, there's yet another way to have public vs private stuff in a repo btw. Git can also use submodules to relate two tepos. That's a better design than trying to integrate that into the same repo. My point is, what you're trying to do in TFS I can promise you can do in Git. But, I'm all I'm hearing is I don't know what labels are after citing sources that say otherwise. And that's fine if I don't know but tell me what I don't know with something concrete and practical. I've already told you Git can do what you're asking. You seem to ignore that. So, if I'm being honest, it seems like you just can't admit you're wrong about Git. Which is silly if I'm being honest. You've already heard me say I could be wrong about labels, but I don't think I am. Which means, this is no longer an intellectual chat.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Since VCS (Verson Control Systems) are meant to store diffs between files... what would the point of storing?...
DavidPendleton wrote:
only the most recent version of a binary file
Isn't that the same as storing the latest binary file which is already simply stored in the file system? I'm curious about this. thanks
We used it for daily builds of DLL's and the like. It gave us a way to keep binaries with the code without taking up a lot of space in the VSS database. You could check it out to keep it from being overwritten when you needed that. It also allowed us (the developers) to manage the folder structure, security, etc. instead of the network folks. Other than that, it was pretty-much the same as a network folder.
-
So, you're saying the dude in the video is wrong as well? Because I'm not hearing anything substantial exept you saying "I'm wrong" when to be honest I don't think you know what I'm saying. I've cited three sources saying what a label is and presented several ways you can achieve what you're after in git. I haven't used TFS in a looooooong time, but that doesn't I'm incapable of understanding. Side note, there's yet another way to have public vs private stuff in a repo btw. Git can also use submodules to relate two tepos. That's a better design than trying to integrate that into the same repo. My point is, what you're trying to do in TFS I can promise you can do in Git. But, I'm all I'm hearing is I don't know what labels are after citing sources that say otherwise. And that's fine if I don't know but tell me what I don't know with something concrete and practical. I've already told you Git can do what you're asking. You seem to ignore that. So, if I'm being honest, it seems like you just can't admit you're wrong about Git. Which is silly if I'm being honest. You've already heard me say I could be wrong about labels, but I don't think I am. Which means, this is no longer an intellectual chat.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
you're saying the dude in the video is wrong as well?
Most likely, but I haven't watched it and I have no intention of watching it. Very likely he doesn't present the full extent of what Labels are and can be used for. Bloggers and YouTubers rarely cover anything in-depth -- they cover only what they can fit in a presentation, not all that can be known. Read the documentation for the full story. Maybe he is wrong, or incomplete, in which case why watch it? If he isn't wrong, then he and I have both failed to explain the situation to you adequately, so why watch it?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I've already told you Git can do what you're asking.
And I've told you it doesn't. So what's your point?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
you just can't admit you're wrong about Git.
I will admit I'm wrong if I'm proven wrong, but so far I have not been.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I could be wrong about labels
I believe you are. I know Labels in TFS and Classes in CMS, and what I have seen in the documentation for Git and Subversion tells me that Tags are not as flexible. So far I have seen no argument or evidence that Tags are as flexible, all I seem to see is a mistaken view that Labels and Classes not as flexible as they actually are -- that Labels (and therefore Classes) are as brain-dead and useless as Tags. It is a simple fact that Labels and Classes are far superior to Tags. I have looked at the Git (and Subversion) documentation and I see no indication that a Tag can contain versions of only selected items in the repository. This is the strength of Labels and Classes. Show me where a Tag can contain a subset of the items, not a simple snapshot of everything in the repository. And even though you may not have a need for that, I and the teams I've worked on do need that. Without that feature, Git is unusable. As is Subversion, as is VSS. Git needs to add this feature. Let me know when they do.
-
jschell wrote:
I don't get excited about any tool. Just as I don't get excited when I decide whether to use a hammer, saw or screw driver.
Hypothetical situation: I suppose if you repeatedly have really bad, frustrating experiences with one tool, and have to put up with it for long periods of time (because there's just nothing better out there), then you find out about some other tool, give it a try, and it works a lot better - and you never go through a bad experience ever again - that'd be reason enough to get excited about something. I'm not saying this is what happened with my coworker, but I had to smile at his enthusiasm using a software program. You don't see that often. Bless him for that, I say.
-
I worked with a strong proponent of Git. "Git's way more powerful". I understand that argument, but if TFVS/TFS/whatever does everything I need it to, with some simple right-click menus that aren't confusing...the extra power Git offers is lost on me...
True. Sadly, the "power of git" slows me down. :( /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
Git is awesome. I know for a fact the only peeps that hate it are the peeps that don't know it. Name one thing TFS does better... I'm waiting.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Name one thing TFS does better... I'm waiting.
Shelve sets that reside on the cloud vs. stashes that reside on a local machine. Disclaimer: I'm not a Git expert and don't claim to be one. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
you're saying the dude in the video is wrong as well?
Most likely, but I haven't watched it and I have no intention of watching it. Very likely he doesn't present the full extent of what Labels are and can be used for. Bloggers and YouTubers rarely cover anything in-depth -- they cover only what they can fit in a presentation, not all that can be known. Read the documentation for the full story. Maybe he is wrong, or incomplete, in which case why watch it? If he isn't wrong, then he and I have both failed to explain the situation to you adequately, so why watch it?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I've already told you Git can do what you're asking.
And I've told you it doesn't. So what's your point?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
you just can't admit you're wrong about Git.
I will admit I'm wrong if I'm proven wrong, but so far I have not been.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I could be wrong about labels
I believe you are. I know Labels in TFS and Classes in CMS, and what I have seen in the documentation for Git and Subversion tells me that Tags are not as flexible. So far I have seen no argument or evidence that Tags are as flexible, all I seem to see is a mistaken view that Labels and Classes not as flexible as they actually are -- that Labels (and therefore Classes) are as brain-dead and useless as Tags. It is a simple fact that Labels and Classes are far superior to Tags. I have looked at the Git (and Subversion) documentation and I see no indication that a Tag can contain versions of only selected items in the repository. This is the strength of Labels and Classes. Show me where a Tag can contain a subset of the items, not a simple snapshot of everything in the repository. And even though you may not have a need for that, I and the teams I've worked on do need that. Without that feature, Git is unusable. As is Subversion, as is VSS. Git needs to add this feature. Let me know when they do.
Ok whatever dude. It's clear you didn't actually read my posts. So now this is another kiddie argument. You go on being whatever kinda close-minded dude you need to be to feel good about yourself. This is a waste of time.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Name one thing TFS does better... I'm waiting.
Shelve sets that reside on the cloud vs. stashes that reside on a local machine. Disclaimer: I'm not a Git expert and don't claim to be one. /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
Ravi Bhavnani wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm not a Git expert and don't claim to be one.
Thanks for being the first person to actually make a legit point though. You're right about that btw. So, can totally see how it would appear on the surface. It's a difference of philosophy though. Git is all about branching. Way more than most SCMs. Stashes are meant to be about uncommitted changes. It's not always stuff you want to share. If there's a change set you want to keep on a remote server because you want to share the code or access it on another machine, just put your committed changes in a branch. You can have temporary branches all day long. It's just a difference of philosophy, where branches are used to the extreme in Git, but it's doable. Git really does excel at merging, so branches are used a lot.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Ok whatever dude. It's clear you didn't actually read my posts. So now this is another kiddie argument. You go on being whatever kinda close-minded dude you need to be to feel good about yourself. This is a waste of time.
Jeremy Falcon
I know what a Tag is (in Subversion and Git). I have known what a Tag is for many years. I do not need to read your posts to know what a Tag is. You have told me nothing which I didn't already know. You seem to have a problem understanding what a Label (in TFS) or Class (in CMS) is, even though I have tried to explain it several times now. The closed mind is on your side, not mine. You are convinced that a Tag is the same thing, when it most definitely is not. Labels and Classes are much more flexible than Tags.
-
Ravi Bhavnani wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm not a Git expert and don't claim to be one.
Thanks for being the first person to actually make a legit point though. You're right about that btw. So, can totally see how it would appear on the surface. It's a difference of philosophy though. Git is all about branching. Way more than most SCMs. Stashes are meant to be about uncommitted changes. It's not always stuff you want to share. If there's a change set you want to keep on a remote server because you want to share the code or access it on another machine, just put your committed changes in a branch. You can have temporary branches all day long. It's just a difference of philosophy, where branches are used to the extreme in Git, but it's doable. Git really does excel at merging, so branches are used a lot.
Jeremy Falcon
Perhaps I'm not using stashes the way they were intended to be used. Let me explain my scenario and maybe you could suggest a better approach. I work on a large enterprise app that consists of a dozen web API apps. During development, the apps are deployed to my local IIS at the end of a successful build. Each app's web.config needs to be tweaked to reference the developer's machine and development port numbers, and databases that reside on the dev's SQL Server. So what I stash is essentially my set of machine specific web.config files. My daily work routine is as follows:
- Stash web configs and have no local changes.
- Pull latest code.
- Unstash web configs.
- Build locally.
- Work on my tasks.
Before I create a pull request, I create a branch with my changes and create the PR from that branch. When the PR completes, I delete that branch. Maybe there's a better way of doing steps 1 and 3? /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
I know what a Tag is (in Subversion and Git). I have known what a Tag is for many years. I do not need to read your posts to know what a Tag is. You have told me nothing which I didn't already know. You seem to have a problem understanding what a Label (in TFS) or Class (in CMS) is, even though I have tried to explain it several times now. The closed mind is on your side, not mine. You are convinced that a Tag is the same thing, when it most definitely is not. Labels and Classes are much more flexible than Tags.
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." - Einstein Just because you said you know what we're talking about, while not actually engaging in the chat, means you're just saying that. Go on, be that way. You don't need friends.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Perhaps I'm not using stashes the way they were intended to be used. Let me explain my scenario and maybe you could suggest a better approach. I work on a large enterprise app that consists of a dozen web API apps. During development, the apps are deployed to my local IIS at the end of a successful build. Each app's web.config needs to be tweaked to reference the developer's machine and development port numbers, and databases that reside on the dev's SQL Server. So what I stash is essentially my set of machine specific web.config files. My daily work routine is as follows:
- Stash web configs and have no local changes.
- Pull latest code.
- Unstash web configs.
- Build locally.
- Work on my tasks.
Before I create a pull request, I create a branch with my changes and create the PR from that branch. When the PR completes, I delete that branch. Maybe there's a better way of doing steps 1 and 3? /ravi
My new year resolution: 2048 x 1536 Home | Articles | My .NET bits | Freeware ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
You're doing it exactly the way you should, including deleting temporary work branches. And, I can 100% see why you'd want to have local configs shared somewhere. The question is where? Should that be in the repo? From a security perspective some will say, never put connection info anywhere in a repo / where it's not needed, and I personally fall into that camp. Especially because git will never forget changes and booboos happen. But then, life happens too. :laugh: So, given that, you got a couple options: 1. You can still push a stash remotely, but it's a pain compared to other SCMs. But if you want ideas, scroll down until you see Scott Weldon's answer. You can totally work with detached heads and commits in git, as long as you remember the short SHA, where git puts stuff, etc. Of course, this is a pain to do. But if you're just looking to backup/share something every now and again, it may be worth it. 2. If the structure of that file is the most important thing (so you can remember what settings you need), you can always create a template settings file that contains everything but the actual connection values and put that into the repo permanently. This is what I do, using something like dotenv (been the web world lately). But, there will be a template file that shows everything that needs to go in the actual config that gets committed while the real values are saved elsewhere. This way you can share the how but not the what. I guess at the end of the day, the difference is, for connection info, I'll put that in Confluence or something if it needs to be shared. Both ideas of keeping it in the shared repo (all in one place) and keeping out out of the shared repo (security) have merit ya know.
Jeremy Falcon
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
That's not what Labels are for, and TFS can do that as well of course.
Given this video (it's 2 minutes only), either this dude is wrong or labels are meant to tag a specific set of files, as well the MS link suggested... [TFS 2013 Tutorial : 24 - How to Apply Labels in Team Foundation Server 2013 using visual Studio - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRVLQWrj2AM) You can modify tags in git and labels in TFS so I'm not sure why bringing this up is relevant. If you need to stage files not marked for release that are in your repo for some reason, let's say internal documentation, that can be achieved with git 100%. However, that's a bad design to do that in the SCM itself. Anything exclusionary should be a part of the build process. So, to keep this on point... right now, I'm mentally considering a changeset like a commit in Git terms. Given that, if for some reason you need a label of two different changesets that are completely unrelated (history-wise) to one another in a label, again Git doesn't work that way. Nor should it. That's just a bad design. If you need that, then merge or rebase into whatever branch you're working on in question and create a tag off that. You'll have exactly the same thing but with a consolidated history trail. Git is more analogous to the blockchain in terms of a history trail. That's a good thing. Also, if labels aren't used to tag a release, why are people saying it is?
Jeremy Falcon
OK, so now I've watched the video, and, as I expected, it seems to cover only that one simple use case which mimics Tags (though maybe it doesn't). But it says nothing about the full power of Labels. The presenter isn't wrong, but the video may leave viewers thinking that that's all Labels are good for. As I have said several times in this discussion, Labels are much more flexible than Tags. Tags are stupid, I see no real world reason to use one. Git should add the same flexibility to Tags, then it will be usable. I will also state that I would never create a Label the way the presenter demonstrates it. It can be very dangerous to do that in a high-velocity team environment. In that regard, as I mentioned in my original response, I need an API with which I can implement a utility to standardize how Labels are created and maintained for my team. The TFS GUI in VS was not good enough for the job. Using TFS' .net API, I was able to write a utility which used the tickets and changesets to create the Labels we needed.
-
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." - Einstein Just because you said you know what we're talking about, while not actually engaging in the chat, means you're just saying that. Go on, be that way. You don't need friends.
Jeremy Falcon
Then show me that Tags are as flexible as Labels. So far you have not, even though I have asked you to. To this point, all I have seen you doing is denying that Labels are more flexible than Tags -- even though they are. I have tried to explain the flexibility of Label several times in this thread, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Maybe the failing is on my side, so I'll try to explain it with an example... Let's say I have a repository, and I check in v1 of files A, B, and C. With Git (or Subversion) I can create a Tag which represents a snapshot of v1 of those three files. Then I check in v2 of those files. With Git (or Subversion) I can create a Tag which represents a snapshot of v2 of those three files. Correct so far? Yes? If I am using TFS (or CMS), I can create Labels (Classes) which do exactly that, but I can also create Labels (Classes) which: Contain v1 of file A and v2 of file B and does not include file C. Contain v2 of file A and v1 of file B and does not include file C. Labels and Classes can also be modified after they have been created -- perhaps after v3 has been checked in. My understanding is that Tags in Git and Subversion cannot do that. Am I wrong? Whether or not you in particular have a need for this feature is irrelevant. CAN Tags (or some other feature I don't know about) in Git do that? I have seen no evidence in the documentation that it can. If so, where does the documentation explain how to do it? IF Git actually does have a feature which provides the functionality of Labels (in TFS) or Classes (in CMS), then I need to know. But, to my knowledge, it is not Tags and so far you have not addressed that question.
-
Dear dog, I thought GIT sucked... but the winner goes to TFVC It seems in all my years of development, I've moved forward with Version Control. RCS -> CVS -> Subversion -> git but going from git to TFVC feels like a step back. Maybe there's just something I don't get from the system.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
"Use the right tool for the right job." Git is not the right tool for any job I've had, but TFS is. I have never had a job in which a distributed version control system would make a positive difference. I found TFS to be much more usable than Git -- TFS just worked. Git was a step back. Maybe the Visual Studio Git integration will some day be up to what we have with TFS. For myself, my experience is more like: CMS (OpenVMS) -> look at VSS, reject it -> look at Subversion, reject it, get forced to use it anyway -> rolled my own* -> Subversion again, but with Tortoise -> TFS -> get forced to use Git -> roll another of my own What makes CMS and TFS superior to VSS, Subversion, and Git is Classes (in CMS) and Labels (in TFS). The others do not have an equivalent feature. TFS also has integrated ticketing and a .net API, which makes it the best system I currently know of. A feature which CMS (OpenVMS only) has which the others don't is the ability to target multiple libraries (repositories) at the same time -- I wish the others would add that, but they won't. CMS also supports Groups, which the others don't. HP has again killed the OpenVMS Hobbyist program, so I can't give any demos of how great CMS is. * I may have mentioned this before. I began it in 2009 (as I recall) and I got it to a vaguely usable state before reaching a major decision point and stalled. The major features are pretty much that of CMS. Occasionally, I think about getting back on it.
-
I worked with a strong proponent of Git. "Git's way more powerful". I understand that argument, but if TFVS/TFS/whatever does everything I need it to, with some simple right-click menus that aren't confusing...the extra power Git offers is lost on me...
dandy72 wrote:
"Git's way more powerful"
Yeah, that only helps if you actually need more power. Maybe you need more control, and less power would be a benefit instead.
dandy72 wrote:
the extra power Git offers is lost on me
The only "extra power" I know it has is that it's distributed, and I don't need that.