How to install source safe

[Desmond]

I used Source safe in Visual Studio 6 (2001) However in .net 2008
after installing it there seems to be no sign
of any source safe. Has this been dis-continued. If not how do I set
it all up.


Desmond.

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

I used Source safe in Visual Studio 6 (2001) However in .net 2008
after installing it there seems to be no sign
of any source safe. Has this been dis-continued. If not how do I set
it all up.

It's not been discontinued, but unless you absolutely *have* to use
it, I'd recommend a different source control system. Personally I
really like Subversion, which is free and *much* nicer than VSS in my
view. Having said that, I believe that VSS has improved since I last
used it. It would have to have improved beyond recognition to be
better than Subversion though...

Jon

 

[Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen]

It's not been discontinued, but unless you absolutely *have* to use
it, I'd recommend a different source control system. Personally I
really like Subversion, which is free and *much* nicer than VSS in my
view. Having said that, I believe that VSS has improved since I last
used it. It would have to have improved beyond recognition to be
better than Subversion though...

Jon

Unfortunately, Source Safe hasn't improved to the extent it should have,
and the word "Safe" in its name is now more of a misnomer than anything
else.

I seriously, and I cannot stress this enough, seriously tell people not
to use Source Safe for anything.

I have seen lost files and directories due to file corruption, and
theres not a day going by without sourcesafe complains once more about
an operation that did not complete successfully, *after* the fact that
it happened.

Even if you have to manually keep track of revisions on postit notes, do
not consider Source Safe.

There are various free options, and as Jon point out, Subversion is very
good. If you couple this with the relatively cheap VisualSVN addin for
Visual Studio you've got yourself a really good platform going forward.

 

[Andy]

It's not been discontinued, but unless you absolutely *have* to use
it, I'd recommend a different source control system. Personally I
really like Subversion, which is free and *much* nicer than VSS in my
view. Having said that, I believe that VSS has improved since I last
used it. It would have to have improved beyond recognition to be
better than Subversion though...

VSS improvements are new graphics, and a web service over which you
can work through the internet. Beyond that, nothing has changed, and
it's as unreliable as ever.

I like SourceGear's Vault. Its not free (unless you only need one
user), is designed to be a replacement for VSS and so works in much
the same way, and it stores it's data in MS Sql server, which I prefer
over using the file system. I don't know how SVN does it, but I think
it works on the FS, which may or may not be transactional, and I don't
know if or how SVN would handle only part of the changes being
committed.

 

[Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen]

VSS improvements are new graphics, and a web service over which you
can work through the internet. Beyond that, nothing has changed, and
it's as unreliable as ever.

I like SourceGear's Vault. Its not free (unless you only need one
user), is designed to be a replacement for VSS and so works in much
the same way, and it stores it's data in MS Sql server, which I prefer
over using the file system. I don't know how SVN does it, but I think
it works on the FS, which may or may not be transactional, and I don't
know if or how SVN would handle only part of the changes being
committed.

SQL Server, as all databases, ultimately deals with files as well.

Subversion does indeed use files to hold revisions, but it is built to
be atomical in the sense that a partial commit (ie. one being
interrupted) is not committed at all and does not show up in the
revision list for the repository.

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

I like SourceGear's Vault. Its not free (unless you only need one
user), is designed to be a replacement for VSS and so works in much
the same way, and it stores it's data in MS Sql server, which I prefer
over using the file system. I don't know how SVN does it, but I think
it works on the FS, which may or may not be transactional, and I don't
know if or how SVN would handle only part of the changes being
committed.

SVN manages to be transactional by keeping each transaction in a
separate file. The transaction is written in one directory, then moved
over when it is complete. The move is required to be atomic. No doubt
there are a few other requirements on the file system, but that's the
basic premise. Note that only diffs are stored in the transaction -
it's not like the server has (on the FS) a "latest copy" of each file.

Note that this system makes it really, really easy to take backups -
much easier than dealing with a database, IMO. Admittedly databases
tend to have backup strategies built-in, but they're rarely as easy as
"copy this directory" (or for incremental backup, "copy all files in
this directory that you haven't already got").

Jon

 

[Rene]

I would imagine that sooner than later Visual SourceSafe will be dropped and
some cheaper version of the "Team Foundation Server Version Control" will
come along.

To the original poster:
The newest version of SourceSafe that is supposed to work better with Visual
Studio 2008 is called "Visual SourceSafe 2005 Update". It's basically Visual
SourceSafe 2005 with service pack 1.

Link to newest version of SourceSafe:
http://blogs.msdn.com/richardb/arch...fe-2005-update-is-available-for-download.aspx

 

[Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen]

I would imagine that sooner than later Visual SourceSafe will be dropped and
some cheaper version of the "Team Foundation Server Version Control" will
come along.

To the original poster:
The newest version of SourceSafe that is supposed to work better with Visual
Studio 2008 is called "Visual SourceSafe 2005 Update". It's basically Visual
SourceSafe 2005 with service pack 1.

It doesn't really matter how well Visual SourceSafe 2005 works with
Visual Studio 2008 because SourceSafe by itself doesn't work very well.

If we let alone all the things it doesn't do, as opposed to other
version control systems, the things it does it doesn't do very well either.

All source control systems will have problems if the repository data is
corrupted, but SourceSafe is the only one I know of that manages to do
that with normal usage.

 

[Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]]

VSS is packaged only with Visual Studio 2005. Even Microsoft doesn't
recommend it any longer.
Peter

 

[Guest]

I used Source safe in Visual Studio 6 (2001) However in .net 2008
after installing it there seems to be no sign
of any source safe. Has this been dis-continued. If not how do I set
it all up.


Desmond.

Take a look at SourceGear Vault - it's a much better product than
SourceSafe. Free for single user too!

 

[Guest]

I like SourceGear's Vault. Its not free (unless you only need one
user), is designed to be a replacement for VSS and so works in much
the same way, and it stores it's data in MS Sql server, which I prefer
over using the file system. I don't know how SVN does it, but I think
it works on the FS, which may or may not be transactional, and I don't
know if or how SVN would handle only part of the changes being
committed.

Subversion has atomic check in capabilities. Overall it's a very
competent source control system.

However, SourceGear Vault is an easier product to use... if the OP is
new to source control, Vault is an excellent product.

 

[Guest]

Note that this system makes it really, really easy to take backups -
much easier than dealing with a database, IMO. Admittedly databases
tend to have backup strategies built-in, but they're rarely as easy as
"copy this directory" (or for incremental backup, "copy all files in
this directory that you haven't already got").

Actually, being in a DB makes it VERY easy to backup - just backup the
SQL Server MDF/LDF file!

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Actually, being in a DB makes it VERY easy to backup - just backup the
SQL Server MDF/LDF file!

That doesn't exactly make incremental backups easy - and potentially it
could be difficult unless you stop the server before backing up.

 

[Guest]

That doesn't exactly make incremental backups easy - and potentially it
could be difficult unless you stop the server before backing up.

If you want incremental, then you can use the built in DB back up
tools, or a compatible backup utility.

SourceGear Vault also only stores the change delta, so very little
space is used. So even if you can't do incremental backups, full
backups are not a hinderance by any means.

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

If you want incremental, then you can use the built in DB back up
tools, or a compatible backup utility.

Which is basically what I said before - but I just don't think it's
quite as simple as straight "copy the new files".

SourceGear Vault also only stores the change delta, so very little
space is used. So even if you can't do incremental backups, full
backups are not a hinderance by any means.

That really depends on the size of your source corpus. Even at
relatively small companies, I've worked on source repositories where
full backups would be okay periodically, but incremental backups are a
significant benefit. (I would hope most source control systems would
use deltas these days, btw.)

 

[Peted]

ive had a look at the website for sourcegear vault. The best i can see
is you can get a 30day demo licence.

How can you say it is free for the single user ?