Android Robot

DnnForge - NewsArticles

01

I have worked on a few projects over the past few years, where I found other members of the team do not see the value of source control. They find it to pain “just another process” that they need to follow. Some say it’s complicated, but I feel that people just don’t want to take the time to learn process. That’s all it is, a process. I have only used a few source control programs over the past 10 years, with Microsoft Source Safe being the software used in most software shops. I have “checked out” (pun fully intended), Source Vault, CVS,sub version and Team System in the past few years. Now while Source Safe has a long list of its own issues, Source Safe is better than no source control. In most cases I stand by Source Safe for its ease of use and wide spread availability at companies. Working at a consulting company, I find myself implementing solutions that a wider spectrum of users will either already have used or can get up to speed very quickly. Now before everyone starts emailing me saying how shitty Source Safe is, I am aware of many of the flaws source safe has. For starters: SourceSafe degrades on large projects Doing differences on large projects can take a great deal of time. Microsoft recommends that the database not exceed 4 GB. Information found on MSDN, WTF SourceSafe integration can crash Visual Studio This has happened to me so many times with Visual Studio 6. I still don’t trust the integration with 2005, so I still stay away from it. Viewing and retrieving historical versions is extremely slow On large projects I found I need to restrict the time limit for the history. SourceSafe handles slow networks and the public internet poorly It was very nice that in Source Safe 2005 they have added http support. It’s very slow, but hey its better than nothing. SourceSafe should be scanned for corruption weekly This is a pain, and something that shouldn’t have to be done SourceSafe database becomes corrupted This has happened to me on a few occurrences, but since a backup procedure was in place, I have never lost any work. Its scary hearing other peoples stories about this. I have not had this issue with Source Safe 2005. SourceSafe relies on dangerous file sharing Source Safe is not a true server. It uses the SMB file sharing protocol. This has issues in own right. SourceSafe cannot be safely extended This is possible to do, but all clients will need to have the new features developed install. There is no way to “push” them to the clients. In conclusion I feel that Microsoft Visual Source Safe is an adequate solution at most small software organizations and there is no reason why you should not be using source control. In the years to come, I see smaller companies phasing out Visual Source Safe and moving to Team Systems. Currently I feel Team Systems is too expensive for most small software shops. Links Team Systems BitKeeper WinCVS SourceGear Vault Subversion