Visual Source Safe, MVP Summit, and NDA Info

10 Comments

• Well, I think past history had indicated exactly how much leaks regardless of who you tell. I'm NOT saying that you or any other MVPs have been a leak source in the past.
  
  
  
  That said, maybe the announcement is tied to something bigger and we want to keep the whole thing under wraps until it is announced. There are many levels of NDA and the information is tailored for the specific NDA audience. So, just because you have an NDA does not mean that all information is available.
  

• "That said, maybe the announcement is tied to something bigger and we want to keep the whole thing under wraps until it is announced."
  
  This in fact says more than Paul has said. Apparently MS has something in the works to solve versioning control once and for all (perhaps working in a class db directly? ) :)
  
  
  
  Although I think too much ground has been lost to Vault or free alternatives like subversion to win back the hearts and minds of the developers to support sourcesafe again. I've never had probs with sourcesafe myself, it did what it promissed and I think a lot of hte bad publicity is also fed by lack of knowledge, but nevertheless, it's bad publicity and a bad reputation.
  

• I hate to argue, Frans, but I would point out that a lot of the good publicity that Source Safe gets is from people with either a lack of knowledge, or an extremely simple source code tree with minimal branching.
  
  I have yet to meet a Software Configuration Manager who looks at Source Safe with anything but disdain.
  
  --
  
  And, as far as Paul's original post, he's correct, this has been stated many times. Every time I ask a Microsoft employee, this is the answer I get.
  
  Unfortunately, I work in a Microsoft only shop, and there is no opportunity to bring anything else in, even if it is free. Else, I'd be jumping on the Subversion bandwagon right about now.
  

• Like many others, I have moved onto SourceGear's Vault, and I have no desire to move back... And we're a Microsoft shop!
  

• Jerry: our database is not that simple I can tell you that :)
  
  
  
  All the people I've spoken to who had probs with sourcesafe, did use the tool wrong (very big databases, multi-checkouts per user, etc. etc.). Admitted, working with a lot of branches is hard in Sourcesafe, that's why we moved to subversion recently. Not because sourcesafe is a big piece of crap though, a thing I keep on hearing.
  

• Speaking of SourceGear's Vault product, what are peoples opinions of it? How well does it work in a remote development environment? Would you recomend switching to Vault, or waiting for MS to upgrade VSS?
  
  
  
  Thanks
  
  CT
  

• We've been using Vault for the better part of a year now and love it. Working with it remotely is faster than SS ever was working across a LAN. Additionally, since SourceGear is a small ISV, they are able to respond quickly to their customers' needs.
  
  
  
  I have no idea what the future holds for SourceSafe so I can't say I would never go back. But, it would require a huge change before I would consider using it again.
  

• I would recommend most anything over VSS right now. Will that change -- I hope so but I honestly don't know much else.
  

• If we get to complain about Source Safe here, how come Shadow Folders dont update when you check in using VS.NET only when you manually check in using Source Safe itself??
  
  JB
  

• Frans, you call it "using the tool wrong", the rest of the world calls it "big databases, multiple-users, decent branching support are all features that any source control product should handle gracefully."