Is there a white paper explaining why Team Foundation Version Control sucks ?
-
"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 wish I could say that my experience was that TFS "just worked", because I found the opposite to be true. I've used (and administrated) all of these source control systems: * Perforce * ClearCase * TFS * git (in CLI and also via BitBucket, GitLab, GitHub) * svn * SourceSafe (which is by far the worst of all of these) * MKS Source Integrity * PVCS * CVS * sccs * CMS (VAX) Of these, TFS is a bottom-quartile experience. If you're heavily into the Windows dev train, then it bumps up in usefulness just a hair, but it still sucks. There are 3 items on this list that I'd quit my job over rather than use again, and TFS is one of them.
-
I wish I could say that my experience was that TFS "just worked", because I found the opposite to be true. I've used (and administrated) all of these source control systems: * Perforce * ClearCase * TFS * git (in CLI and also via BitBucket, GitLab, GitHub) * svn * SourceSafe (which is by far the worst of all of these) * MKS Source Integrity * PVCS * CVS * sccs * CMS (VAX) Of these, TFS is a bottom-quartile experience. If you're heavily into the Windows dev train, then it bumps up in usefulness just a hair, but it still sucks. There are 3 items on this list that I'd quit my job over rather than use again, and TFS is one of them.
Br.Bill wrote:
If you're heavily into the Windows dev train
Oh, yes, I agree with that. I should have added a qualifier. I doubt anyone would use TFS if they are not using Visual Studio. I was mainly using SSIS, which necessitated the use of Visual Studio anyway. Trying to use Git with SSIS was very problematic (for me anyway, there were other issues involved [e.g. corporate politics] which didn't help) and I had to create a nasty work-around to get it to work. I have never had a choice of version control system, they are always dictated by management. As to writing code (C/C++ C# etc.) I prefer not to use Visual Studio at all. Similarly for SQL code -- I develop that in SSMS, not Visual Studio, then I have to generate scripts via the SMO API in .net to get them right.