|
We've used Visual SourceSafe since 2000. It's worked okay largely because I'm rigorous about backups and regular maintenance.
I don't 'get' git yet. That's going to take time and plenty of day-to-day experience. My impression so far is that the command-line interface grew as a yeast culture. The developers added or changed things as they occurred to them, and there's no rationale or consistency as a result. The GUI operations provided in Visual Studio 2019 (we're not using 2022 yet) are the bare minimum you need while working on your code. I haven't tried them from Visual Studio Code yet, but I expect better support there.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I never used VSS, but back in the 90s the company I was working for considered it as a replacement for CMS (OpenVMS) and found it lacking.
TFS is probably the next best option.
|
|
|
|
|
Gary R. Wheeler wrote: The GUI operations provided in Visual Studio 2019 (we're not using 2022 yet) are the bare minimum you need while working on your code.
You'll probably get a ton of recommendations for git GUI clients and, as they say, "de gustibus non est disputandum", so I hurry to put my own preference before you get flooded  . Give a try to TortoiseGit[^].
I went through a similar migration path a few years back (well.., maybe 10... no, more like 20 ). I was so fed up with SourceSafe that I moved to CVS and that's how I started to use TortoiseCVS, the precursor of TortoiseGit. After a few years (about 9 or 10) the last dinosaurs in the company realized they were flogging a dead horse and everyone moved to Git. The only history that survived was the one I had in my CVS server. All SourceSafe stuff had to be scrapped. I hope you managed to save more from your history.
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't help that a Pull request is what most of us understand to be a code review then a Merge, while a Merge in Git is an operation in its own right - took me a while to get things(having moved from SVN) and GitHub still occasionally catches me out with the "Where do I click to actually see the diffs for this branch?" question.
I had previously used trunk based development with Git which is straightforward - it's just a bit more complex working with branches and the almost inevitable and horrible merge conflicts when working with Pull requests in a team. I also wonder if it might be an age thing with the young'uns being happy with all the shiny complexity.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
modified 8-Jun-23 3:30am.
|
|
|
|
|
Git has a steep learning curve, but it is worth it. I used SourceSafe and SubVersion in the past and think Git is much better.
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you and the "youngster" could collaborate on an article for CP ... which i am sure will be popular ?
«The mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled» Plutarch
|
|
|
|
|
No snickering re: Subversion. It was so much better than Visual SourceSafe....
|
|
|
|
|
Although businesses use git I do not consider it a valid source control system for any beyond the trivial enterprise.
The problem is that labels can only be applied to the repo.
A repo works fine for open source. For example junit/nunit where there is only one deliverable.
Business enterprises often consist of multiple products even when presented as a single visible product/service. And businesses often end up using 'libraries' which are shared.
Naturally a business could put a library into its own repo but that is often (always?) more work than anyone wants to do because then it requires handling that library as an independent deliverable. Which they don't want to do.
That is not a problem with other source control systems because a label can be applied to part of the source control tree. Thus one can pseudo manage that library without formally managing it. Which is about all one can get most developers to do.
But you can't do that with git.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Although businesses use git I do not consider it a valid source control system for any beyond the trivial enterprise.
Not to defend Git (I hated my experience with it), but I've done some contracting with...let's call it, one of the largest software development companies in the world...and all source code I've worked on had to go to their Git repository. And they pretty much encourage you to work from the command prompt to interact with it, rather than using VS and its feeble attempt at integration. It seemed like a huge step backwards.
And they had developed a rather large/nasty/complex build system, all sitting on top of it. So, they're all in - totally committed.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: they're all in - totally committed
I see what you did there  .
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
I did catch it as I wrote it...then thought, yeah, let's go with that... 
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: And they pretty much encourage you to work from the command prompt to interact with it
Not sure how they would do that.
But at any rate I have never used VS source control. Not for git and not for other source control types either. I find inserting too many tools into one UI does nothing but lead to confusion and potential mistakes. For example something I have seen (not just in VS) is the idea of an 'auto commit' - I consider that just a mistake waiting to happen.
For git I use the command line and TortoiseGit.
dandy72 wrote: one of the largest software development companies in the world.
Can't remember which one, but one of the big ones has their own in house built source control system.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: I do not consider it a valid source control system
Nor do I.
jschell wrote: labels can only be applied to the repo.
That's one of the big shortcomings of nearly all such systems. Subversion has Tags which have the same issue.
TFS has labels, which are critical to a useful system. In CMS, they're called classes.
But TFS still has the shortcoming that files are stored as they are in a file hierarchy, which limits the ability to share files between projects. Subversion at least has soft-copies, but that's still not a great solution.
CMS has other features which lead to a more flexible way to support multiple projects from one library of code files.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Subversion has Tags which have the same issue.
That is not what I remember. You can tag folders and files individually.
I googled just now and what I found seems to suggest I remembered it correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so I got a phishing email so blatant that it must have been done by ChatGPT.
I only get one or two of these a week (my email goes through a mail washer), so I decided to see what it was. Using a "throw away" VM, I went to the site with: Brave, Chrome, Edge, Firefox and Vivaldi browsers.
Only Firefox blocked the site with a big red screen, and a Details button. Site was known to install software, etc.
I need to rethink my default browser.
>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Firefox is the only browser I truly trust, I sometimes use Brave only because its ad-block is finer - usually it does not get detected by anti Ad-block countermeasures.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
|
|
|
|
|
I get to ignore even more emails: "That was you? I thought it was (AI) spam ..."
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
theoldfool wrote: I need to rethink my default browser.
The sad truth is, Mozilla will never have the money of Google as long as they don't also partake in the sneaky practices of Google. And less money means less adverts, company deals, etc.
To make it worse, Google is on top of adding new features to mix in with their spyware. So, the desire for Chrome is hard to ignore since most people will never take the time to learn anything about the software they're using.
But, FF is the better browser in terms of trust. They have no financial incentives to do anything other than just work on the browser. And, I say this as a dude who doesn't use FF. So, it's not bias talking.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
|
theoldfool wrote: Only Firefox blocked the site with a big red screen, and a Details button. Site was known to install software, etc.
So, using other browsers, did anything manage to actually get installed without your approval?
It's one thing for the browser to warn about known bad sites; it's something else altogether if a browser fails to block something nefarious. Personally, I wouldn't change browsers because another one has training wheels.
|
|
|
|
|
Only went to the base site, not the full URL in the email.
>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.
|
|
|
|
|
This is not snark, but genuine curiosity: can you try it on Safari?
|
|
|
|
|
No, the last time I went to try Safari on Linux it wanted to run the Windows version using (choke) Wine.
I have an ancient MacBook Pro (2014) and I doubt that is runs the latest Safari. Haven't booted it up in months, only use when I travel and then to run my VM's on it.
Sorry.
>64
User: Technical term used by developers. See idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
All good; thanks for the reply.
|
|
|
|
|
Firefox has saved my bacon a few times!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
