Maybe they'll get it right when they decide to acquire or at least endorse SourceGear Vault?

Do you need source control integration for that model? For checkout-edit-checkin, it makes a lot of sense for why you need source code integration. You cannot edit a file until you check it out, and you do not want to keep it checked out long. Making this easy to do from the IDE makes sense. With Edit-Merge-Commit, it doesn't seem like the IDE needs to control what you are doing with your files. Sure, it might be nice to have the ability to checkin files from the IDE, but it seems to me that could be done fairly simply with a VS Add-In, without requiring a change to the SCC API. Am I wrong?

Josh, I think that even in the Edit-Merge-Commit model, it would be nice to see what the status of each file is in Solution Explorer. Similar to the TortoiseCVS/Subversion Explorer addin.

Another thing I would like to be able to do is check-in a changeset as an atomic transaction rather than individual files.

David, the default model for SourceGear Vault is VSS-style CheckOut-CheckIn. So I'm not sure why "acquiring" Vault would make Microsoft "get it right." Besides, why does Microsoft have to endorse a competitor's product? They did "endorse" SourceOffSite because it was complementary to Visual SourceSafe.

Kiliman

Actually, we're making Copy-Modify-Merge rather than Lock-Modify-Unlock the default database setting for VSS.next. We demonstrated this new feature during the database creation portion of the Webcast that you point to in your post. Cheers, Korby

I've never understood why people love SourceGear's Vault. It has a better and more stable backend but the frontend suffers from the same design flaws as VSS.

We have been using Subversion since 1.0 and I can't imagine we will ever go back to VSS. Subversion rocks.

By the way, we don't use any VS plug-in for Subversion. The command line abilities of Subversion are so easy that it just isn't needed.