Re: SourceSafe issues continued
- From: "Ook" <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:56:11 -0700
It helps, but brings up more questions. You said:
> Developer B does an "Update project list" using the VSS integration in
> VFP. This updates his project with what was changed by Developer A.
We are not seeing this happening. When we did this, Developer Bs out dated
project list overwrote the PJM in sourcesafe, causing Developer As changes
to be lost. Hence my belief that 'Update Project List' is one way, from VFP
to VSS, over-writing any changes previously made to the PJM. Hence my belief
that "joining" the project is the only way to get updates. Am I wrong? I
re-admit that I 'm not a VSS expert, and that is why I'm here, to find out
if we are doing something wrong. You are describing a process that did not
work for us, and caused a lot of grief when we ended up with an outdated
project.
> I think this statement might be your key: "Our "build master" updated the
> master project (PJM) in VSS"
My description was faulty, my apologies. When our build master updated the
master project, he did it via VFP via Update Project List. Other then taking
10-15 minutes because of the size of the project, this actually works just
fine.
Is our VSS manager clueless and we just don't know what we are doing?
"William Fields" <Bill_Fields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eLvraR4RFHA.688@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> We don't have a dozen developers, but I can't imagine that it would be
> different just because of the number of developers. I can imagine that a
> dozen developers all adding/deleting files all the time would require
quite
> a bit of updating/merging, which could get tricky, but it should be
workable
> given a properly defined process. One way of reducing this compounding
level
> of update effort would be to have one person be in charge of
adding/removing
> items from the VFP project manager and starting the "Update project list"
> chain of events.
>
> I think this statement might be your key: "Our "build master" updated the
> master project (PJM) in VSS"
>
> We've never done it this way. We only update the VFP project from within
VFP
> using the VSS integration. Here's the process:
>
> 1. Developer A adds or removes an item from the VFP project manager.
> 2. Developer A does an "Update project list" using the VSS integration in
> VFP. The VFP project is updated in the VSS database because of this.
> 3. Developer B does an "Update project list" using the VSS integration in
> VFP. This updates his project with what was changed by Developer A. If
> needed, there may be a visual merge process that Developer B needs to go
> through (because both Developer A and Developer B added or removed files
> from the VFP project).
> 4. Developers C-Z do the same thing and all is well and fine in the ZEN
> world of VSS.
>
> I have never touched the PJM file in the VSS explorer.
>
> Now, if you have a bunch of people not paying attention to what they're
> doing visually merging changes improperly, I imagine you'll have issues.
> It's a matter of cross-developer communication and creating a project
update
> process that needs to be followed. The VFP integration is great if used
> properly.
>
> Hope that helps Ook.
>
> --
> William Fields
> MCSD - Microsoft Visual FoxPro
> US Bankruptcy Court
> Phoenix, AZ
>
> "If it's free, I'll take three!"
>
>
>
> "Dan Freeman" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:OFRLHA4RFHA.1236@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Maybe you should completely ditch the VFP/VSS integration and do it all
> > manually. Some people do. <shrug>
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Ook wrote:
> >> Right, let's continue this topic because I'm still not clear on a few
> >> issues. Our "build master" updated the master project (PJM) in VSS.
> >> We have a dozen developers that need to update their project. How do
> >> they do this?
> >>
> >> "Joining the project" is what we do because it is the only way we
> >> know how. It is very slow and causes the user doing so to check out
> >> the PJM, preventing anyone else from doing this. User A "joins"
> >> project. VSS automatically checks out the PJM to this person. This is
> >> just not right. User A does not need the PJM, and VSS should not
> >> check it out to them. User B, C, D....J all want to do the same, but
> >> no one else can because you can't "join" the project if the PJM is
> >> checked out to someone else. When this happens, it takes all morning
> >> for everyone to get the most current project because they have to do
> >> it one at a time.
> >>
> >> We can't "update project", because overwrites the PJM with old project
> >> settings. Update Project goes from local VFP to VSS, and we want to
> >> go from VSS to VFP.
> >>
> >> Getting latest does not update the PJT/PJX, and without an updated
> >> PJT/PJX you cannot truely get latest from within VFP. Getting latest
> >> simply gets latest version of files project is aware of.
> >>
> >> We've been going back and forth, back and forth, and the tech leads
> >> want to get rid of the PJM and just store the PJX/PJT in sourcesafe
> >> because (from their perspective) the VSS/VFP interface is such a
> >> kluge. I'm not sure I disagree, but then I'm not a VSS expert.
> >
> >
>
>
.
- References:
- SourceSafe issues continued
- From: Ook
- Re: SourceSafe issues continued
- From: Dan Freeman
- Re: SourceSafe issues continued
- From: William Fields
- SourceSafe issues continued
- Prev by Date: Re: How to determine SMTP(s)
- Next by Date: Re: SourceSafe issues continued
- Previous by thread: Re: SourceSafe issues continued
- Next by thread: Re: SourceSafe issues continued
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
