I've currently got a number of Team Projects all happily managed by TFS.
I have one project, a windows app, that is currently in use and before I ported the code base to TFS, we manually used to maintain both the production build and a new development build using scripts to copy/merge the files.
e.g. App1 v1.x - production and
App1 v2.0 in development.
Before TFS we manually "merged" to bug fixes from the development build into the production build - so where applicable bug fixes from v1.x were also fixed in v2.
In this particular case v2 is quite different, re-factored ui, etc. The question I have is what is the best way of porting this scenario to TFS.
As I see it I have two options:
Create a new Team Project and continue manually "merging" applicable
code files.
Create a brand from the current project v1 and replace / overwrite the project piece by piece in VS so that the source control can manage the changes back to the Main team project.
V2 has a few additional class libs too - if that makes a difference.
Typically, this is the strategy we use to do branching and merging:
The project starts. All team members are working on version 1.0 in the single CURRENT branch.
Project approaches a milestone or release. Make a branch that will be used to stabilized the code for production in PROD 1.0 branch. Now half of the team stabilizes the product on the branch and half of the team continues doing new (riskful) stuff on the CURRENT branch.
PROD 1.0 branch is ready and delivered in production. The branch stays intact to provide maintenance and support on the delivered version. Fixes are made on the PROD 1.0 branch and merged into the CURRENT branch.
Project approaches another milestone or release. Make a new branch that will be used to stabilized the code for production in PROD 2.0 branch. The same mechanism is used as described before.
Using this branch-per-release strategy, you always have a branch per shipped and to be maintained version in which fixes can easily be propagated forward and backward between versions and the mainstream CURRENT development line.
With this respect, we use a TFS team project for multiple releases of a certain product. This limits the overhead creating and maintaining the project spaces.
In short...To branch!
It seems your code between versions is that much similar that you should be fine by simply branching your new release.
In general, changing to a new Team Project makes sense if you have one or more of the following:
a totally new bread of requirements and/or different Work Item types
completely different technology, in other words you have radically changed the design & merging is more loss than gain
need to store docs & other tokens in another SharePoint site
different development methodology - process template
different teams of people working on both sides, possibly want to restrict users from viewing v1 or v2
plan to release both products in completely different release cycles
need for totally separated reports
Reading your post I don't recognize the need to go after creating a new Team Project - of course I might be wrong.
In case you decide to go with the branch variant you could be greatly benefited from the impressive Visual Studio TFS Branching Guide 2010, on how to shape the structure of your codebase.
Related
Environment:
TFS 2018 with source code in TFS Git
developers are using gitflow-like workflow (main, develop and short-lived feature branches)
there is a build definition used for CI (off of develop branch)
... and another one for releases (off of main branch)
as project evolves build definitions get updated (new steps, etc)
What is the best approach that allows reproduction of previous builds (or, at minimum, release builds)? (in case if previously made build was lost in boating accident)
Ideally I need to be able to plug in version (e.g. 8.5.12345.1) somewhere, press OK and eventually receive data identical to that produced by corresponding build in the past.
Your best approach is to switch to YAML builds and releases. That way your pipeline is versioned together with the code.
If you don't do that, you may need to clone your build and releases every time you make breaking changes.
Alternatively, use the version diff view in your pipeline to go back to an older version or use the json to create a new definition using the API.
Upgrading to Azure DevOps Servers 2020 will give you more advanced YAML features not yet available in Team Foundation Server 2018.
Note: for truly reproducible builds, you'll need to also find a way to lock the build tasks themselves, TFS and Azure DevOps will automatically roll forward to the latest minor version of a given build task. While task authors should try to prevent any breaking changes in those minor upgrades there are no guarantees. You can also never rely on any tool installers that use a v2.x notation or a task that relies on latest. Azure DevOps isn't ideally suited for full reproducible builds.
You can pin task versions in YAML now, if I remember correctly, this was added in Azure DevOps 2020.
You can set which minor version gets used by specifying the full version number of a task after the # sign (example: GoTool#0.3.1). You can only use task versions that exist for your organization.
See: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/devops/pipelines/process/tasks?view=azure-devops&tabs=yaml#task-versions
The Tasks docs offer special scripts to pin the versions of out-of-the-box tasks as well.
I am designing a branching & merging strategy for my project (We use TFS). Project has plans to have multiple released versions. Currently we are testing v1.0alpha and working in v2.0
The plan is:
After imminent green light from testers, version v1.0 will be released to one client.
Version v1.1 (already in dev) will be deployed to 5-6 clients
Version v1.2 would be installed to dozens of clients.
etc.
We will try to force upgrade of old clients to most recent versions but due to the nature of project and market it can be months (years?) for clients to upgrade.
We want to use standard gitflow but seems more appropriate for having a single version. I have designed a simplification of gitflow:
The approach is:
If a client wants a bug fixed, we will fix it in the Release branch of his version and he has to upgrade to the latest revision of his version. For example client in v1.0 that has a bug would have to upgrade to v1.0.5. If the bug happens in other versions we will fix it there.
If the client wants a new feature we will develop it in the latest version and force them to upgrade if they want it. For example client in v1.0.5 that wants new version will have to upgrade to v1.2
If all the clients of a given version upgrade we will delete that Release branch. For example when the client of v1.0 upgrades we will burminate v1.0 Release branch.
So my questions in order of importance are:
Will my approach work? Any problems that you can see?
Does git-flow have any pattern for this "multiple versions scenario"?
Gitflow has a Master branch. Is it ok not having a Master branch? Could we consider the different Release branches as "Master"?
How will you name Dev and Releases branches?
Your approach should work. There is nothing magical to GitFlow, and variations catering to your needs are fine. Git itself has no issues with a different workflow. A good example is Github flow, take a look at http://scottchacon.com/2011/08/31/github-flow.html .
A few things you could consider:
a) "Principle of least surprise": Try to keep as close to a standard as you can. That means you i) point devs to available documentation on the web instead of writing up everything ii) make it easier for new devs to enter or just work with your projects.
Thus, you should keep the master branch, not because it is needed - it is not, but because it might confuse people when it is not there, and you would have to explain that for years to come.
Branches in git is "just" names (well, a bit more, but you get my meaning), so the only reason to name them the same is convention - making it easy for people.
b) How many devs are working on the projects? If there are many, you could consider the Dev branch an integration branch, and use the master branch as the stable branch. Having a dev branch that you allow to be unstable might solve many issues with many devs. Two teams committing, one from feature and one from a hotfix, the build goes red, the teams blaming each other, the third team try to get out a new release branch, but can't. Having a stable, always green build master branch, which you even could protect with pull requests, is very nice, and makes for a more relaxed environment.
2) Basic Gitflow is centered around a release, so not quite. You have multiple releases at the same time. So you are nearly there, but standard tools, like [Jakob Ehn's] (https://github.com/jakobehn) Gitflow extention to Visual Studio - which is supergreat - will make you try to close a release before you are allowed to open a new one. Ask Jakob to relax that, and the tool will work for you. Otherwise, just follow the convention, but do it manually - that works too.
3) See point 1 above about master and why it might not be a good idea to not have it. But of course you can consider the release branches as kind of masters, but they don't really behave that way in your description. And if so, which one is the real master, the one you create feature branches from, and the one you regard as the latest? Having a stable master solves a lot of questions that pops up without.
4) Dev or Develop, then features should have a name of the feature as close to what it does as possible, like Dev/NewHelpPage, or Feature/NewHelpPage (to be closer to gitflow convention). Release branches, it looks like you already follow the semantic versioning (http://semver.org) principle, so why not use that: Release/V1.0, Release/V1.1 and so on. A hotfix branch is then Release/V1.0.1 .
Let the naming be so that devs easily understand what it is, preferably without needing to have to ask anyone around.
Keep it simple, follow conventions as far as you can, and it tends to work out. Git itself works for mostly any branching scheme.
[Edit]
Just had a quick chat with Jakob, and he said he had requests to support support-branches, which is probably what you are really after. He also pointed to this excellent post on different gitflow scenarios, at the bottom there is the flow for support-branches.
I apologize for the length of this post but I needed to include a lot of information for proper answers. I hope this does not discourage responses...
Our shop historically has coded web sites using Classic ASP with some newer ASP.NET sites configured as web sites. As everyone knows this means that the source files (*.asp, *.aspx, and *.aspx.vb (or *.aspx.cs)) files are deployed to development and production servers as is.
The configuration management process was (and still is) entirely manual and includes the following steps (requirements):
Taking copies of the modified files and storing them in a "release" folder for archiving.
Taking copies of the production files that will be replaced and storing them in a "archive" folder for easier rollback.
Generating a diff report of before and after source files for code review or general reference when diagnosing a post-release issue.
The developer who coded the changes is not the person who performs the production release. The original developer is required to hand off the source files to another developer for some additional testing and production deployment.
To make the situation more difficult (not with the above..but with what I talk about below) we do not follow a formal release schedule. As individual bugs or enhancements are completed they are released. This means we could easily be making several releases to a site a week. It is even possible that a given site gets two different releases to individual pages on the same day!
Since I came on board I have been trying to transition the team to newer technologies like ASP.NET web applications and ASP.NET MVC. (We have also taken on responsibility for stand-alone applications and console utilities used for non-web processes...so my dilemma still applies.)
The difference between these technologies and the legacy technologies is the pre-compiling. Instead of deploying the code-behind files (*.aspx.vb (or *.aspx.cs)) a dll or exe gets deployed. This type of deployment package has raised several questions (issues ??).
Generating difference reports when the source has been compiled. While the newly modified source files are sitting on the developers system the production copy is a compiled copy.
Making sure that changes related to other bugs or enhancements are not included in the particular release. This would apply to both the original developer and the person performing the release.
Allowing the original developer to pass along the changed files to another developer for build, testing, and deployment.
Up to now I was the only developer on the team working on these types of sites and applications so the conflicts and issues mentioned above where non-existent. (I skip the difference report step and the I do my own deployments.) However, I am trying to push the rest of the team to embrace this plus allow for better distribution of bugs and enhancement tasks.
We are currently using VSS but I am pushing (and will most likely succeed) in getting us moved over to TFS. Some ideas I have are
Setting up a separate build system for use by the developer to do the deployment. This will solve two problems -- (1) Different versions/patches of Visual Studio and other libraries between developers and (2) instances where the person performing the release has checked out files locally for another change. (Of course this does not guarantee differences between the build system and the original developer but at least that means the release is from a consistent config.
Using labels to tag just the modified files. My problem is that while I can identify (and pull down for a build) the modified files, how do I identify the files that need to be included in the build but have not changed. Again, the idea is to not included checked in files that are related to un-released changes.
Using labels to tag all the files for the release (the modified files and the unchanged files). My problem with this is similar to the last one...how do I make sure that a file checked in by another developer (say they went on vacation) for an un-related change is not labelled and included in this build.
Using the labels I could probably write a script to generate difference reports for the labeled version and the previously labeled version. If the process works properly that should result in exactly what changes are included in the the particular release..?
Any other ideas, concerns, points of interest? While I do have some flexibility of the process some of the requirements (like difference report or some way to easily view differences and having separate developer/deployer) are most likely untouchable.
Thank you so much for any help you can provide on this.
To keep track of different versions of the code and to help you manage very fast release cycles (daily) vs long term enhancements you can use branches in TFS.
There is a ton of information out there on branching, but in general I like to try to keep things simple. For example, have one branch called "release" and another "development". Everybody works on the development branch but the code to be deployed to production is merged into the release branch right before release.
This blog post describes the process:
http://team-foundation-server.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-we-branch-our-code-in-tfs.html
Well, based on my experience with VS2003 vs VS2010 for example is that the project structures are different and allowing VS to do a conversion often times results in a solution that either requires a lot of refactoring or is unusable. Having said that; if you can transition everything over to TFS2010 then one way to handle it is to setup different projects for each solution and use the TFS built in version handling for the different releases. You can also set up a build server and schedule nightly builds. If the build is ok then you can push this version into testing and ultimately production. You should really read up on TFS because it's totally different from VSS and is definitely a huge upgrade in allowing you to do team-focused development.
P.S. TFS has a really good Sharepoint integration which will help you and your team keep track of all the bugs and tasks.
we have 2 dev teams, one team work on TFS2005 and the other team work on TFS2010.
it's the SAME project but one team is continue to work on .net framework1.1 project version and the other team work on the .net framework4.0 project version.
WE HAVE ONLY SOURCE CONTROL (NO WORKING ITEMS AND ETC...)
after we do the first import from TFS2005 to TFS2010 to TPC X, can we import after one week just the changes of the passed week?
can we do import (TFS2005 to TFS2010) to the same TPC X (already existing one) ?
can check in can be done automatic to 2 TFS servers ?
I'd avoid splitting your code base accross 2 servers if possible. Once you've moved the code in to TFS 2010 I'd use branching to distinguish between the .net 1.1 version of the code and the .net 4 version.
Once you have the code in branches you can merge the code on a regular basis to keep the versions in step.
You need to think about what branching stratgy works best for your situation, read the guidance on codeplax to help you decide. Your branching strategy will depend largly on whether the .net 1.1 version of your code is being actively developed or if it's just in maintenance / bug fix mode.
If you're using VS 2003 to do the .net 1.1 development you can use the MSSCCI provider to give you basic TFS integration.
From your description it sounds like you already have two versions of this project in two separate TFS Servers. I agree with James that it's best not to split codebase across two version control systems, but sometimes we just end up in this type of situation.
How are you importing from TFS2005 to TFS2010?
This is an important question. TFS2010 does not have a way to import a single Team Project from one server to another. You can Import an entire TPC (Team Project Collection). I know of only two methods:
A) Seriously look at TIP (TFS Integration Platform). It's not perfect, but it is designed to do what you are looking for.
B) You can do a snapshot migration. Basically this means getting latest from VS2005, check in to VS2010 (wherever you want), then leave all prior history in VS2005.
If TIP doesn't work for you or is deemed too risky or missing critical info then find out if TFS2010 can import TFS2005 databases to migrate your TFS2005 Team Project Collection. If yes then make a copy of the TFS2005 Version Control databases, then import the entire Team Project Collection into TFS2010, then delete the other TFS2005 projects from this collection that aren't needed. You can call this your TFS2005 Archive Team Project Collection and keep the full fidelity version history on-hand if needed. I did a migration from TFS2008 to TFS2010 a couple times. It's non-trivial but doable.
Migration approaches:
Plan A: Migrate everything to TFS2010 and retire TFS2005 as soon as you can. You can archive 2005 or perhaps move it to a virtual machine if you feel it's essential to have available... but you really want to cut your admin work in half plus get 5 years worth of improvements by moving everything to TFS2010.
Plan B: Set up a system that allows you to integrate between the two servers until you can finally retire TFS2005. Stay in this situation only as long as absolutely necessary and upgrade whatever you need to unblock moving everything to TFS2010.
Q&A:
After we do the first import from TFS2005 to TFS2010 to TPC X, can we import after one week just the changes of the passed week?
A: It should be doable, but fidelity of import depends on how you are importing.
If you are doing a "snapshot migration" by checking in the latest version of VS2005 code into VS2010 then you can check out the first snapshot, repeat a new snapshot over the code, then merge the changes. The BIG drawback to snapshot migration process is that you lose all metadata in TFS2005 including change history, labels, checkin comments...
If you use TFS Integration Platform hopefully most content and metadata will transfer. The neat thing here is once you define the synchronization rules and run it once you can simply re-run the same migration with minor changes. Watch for how labels and changeset metadata gets transferred.
Can we do import (TFS2005 to TFS2010) to the same TPC X (already existing one) ?
TFS Integration
A: That shouldn't be a problem. TFS Integration Platform or checking in a "snapshot migration" can be targeted to any folder path. I assume there is no formal branch relationship established between the two codebases currently. Therefore I'd strongly recommend checking in the imported files into a separate folder, convert it to a branch (if not already done by import process), then establish whatever branching relationship makes sense to the existing TFS2010 project branch. If there is no shared code between these two projects then I'd keep their branches separated.
Can check in can be done automatic to 2 TFS servers?
A: That's the promise of TIP (the TFS Integration Platform). I personally had a rocky time trying to get it to migrate full source history from one TFS2010 Server to another, but big part of that problem was network issues traveling across 6,000+ miles and 3 firewalls.
Start by reading this blog and it's comments for a well balanced discussion of TIP and current limitations: TFS Integration Platform Updated (Mar ‘11)
Good Luck!
There are several/many questions regarding TFS branching strategy, but I am haven't been able to come up with a strategy that fits with my scenario. My TFS project consists of a single solution that contains a Web Project, a Business Layer Project, and a Data Layer Project. The project is a portal of reports. Reports are largely isolated in subfolders within the project. There are however some features across the entire project such as session management. Over a given period of time, the workflow may occur as follows:
Stable snapshot of code.
Development of Report A begins.
Development of Report B begins.
The project with the inclusion of Report A needs to be pushed to our qa environment.
The project with the inclusion of Report A and Report B needs to be pushed to our qa environment.
The project with only the inclusion of Report B needs to be pushed to our prod environment.
So basically, each report is on a completely independent timetable. I need to be able to independently publish a branch of code to our different environments. Currently, we don't have branching - we just don't add a link to a new feature if the project gets published when a report isn't ready but is included in the project. Not the best scenario.
My initial go at a branching strategy was to have Main sit between the QA and prod environments, basically as just a container to merge before branching to a production branch for a production publish. Each report would be developed on a branch from main. For both our test and qa environments, a branch from main would be created and the appropriate development branch(es) would be merged into this "proposed updates" branch. This doesn't work though because I am merging development/feature branches into a branch that isn't the parent branch. I can't have Main at this level because a Report may be in development for weeks while another may be on a timetable that has it developed and pushed through the process to production in only a few days. My "proposed update" branches for test and qa need to be able to be independently created from a merging of only the appropriate dev branch(es).
My only experience with branching/merging is a main+dev pair of branches, so I'm very out of my element here. How can I setup my branching in such a way that I am able to merge features in on independent timetables without getting stuck and code being published to an environment before it is ready?
If it matters, we are on TFS 2008 right now and hope to go to TFS 2010 soon. This is an immediate need to get going on our current TFS 2008 server though.
I'm not exactly clear on everything; reading comprehension and all.
As I understand it, your current process is Dev -> Test -> QA -> Production. Devs work on code, push it to an environment where they can test on it. Once satisfied, they push it to QA, and when code passes it moves into production.
In addition, you have several "teams" (1 or more devs) that must work on separate reports, each of which must eventually be moved through the above process into Production. Teams may be working on code that is distinct from all others, or teams may find they cannot move their code forward until other teams reach stability.
If I were in charge of branching for this solution, I would recommend the following.
First, create a Production branch. This branch only contains production code. Only your QA team touches this branch.
Next, create a QA branch. This branch is also maintained solely by QA teams. They manually merge test code into this branch, run their quality assurance tests, then merge with Production. Every time they merge with Production, or test code is accepted into QA, a label is applied to the branch. If test code fails, the branch is reverted back to the prior label.
Development teams manage their own branches. They are created by branching from QA at the latest label. This assures they are working with the latest approved code. Developers work with and test on this branch. If teams have a dependency on each other, they should work on the same branch, unless it becomes clear that creating secondary branches from their shared Dev branch would be easier. Once a Dev branch meets the milestones set for the developers, QA should be informed that the branch is ready for merging with QA for testing.
Alternatively, depending on how complex development is, you might even consider uniting the QA and Production branches. Often, it is a simple matter to add a label to a branch to indicate a stable, production worthy build. It also keeps the branching strategy as simple as possible, which is always a good thing.
I think you should look at the Branching Guidance put together by the VS ALM Rangers.
http://tfsbranchingguideiii.codeplex.com/
This should alswer all of your questions. You are looking at quite an advanced branch plan. I also have some good practical guidance on my blog. I know that I am talking about Scrum teams, but it is basicaly Feature branching based on the Guidance.
http://blog.hinshelwood.com/archive/2010/04/14/guidance-a-branching-strategy-for-scrum-teams.aspx
If you get a chance please vote over
at the new "Visual Studio ALM"
StackExchange over in Area51 as we are
trying to setup a place dedicated to
answering these questions with the
Visual Studio ALM MVP's and Visual
Studio ALM Rangers on hand to answer
your questions.
http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/15894/visual-studio-alm
[I know this question is old but this may help others that come across this question]
Most "branch per feature" teams use one "main" branch and break away from the branch per environment approach. Environment releases can be handled by clearly labeling each environmental release on the MAIN branch.
The QA release is the result of merging all features/issue branches considered fully tested and ready for QA into MAIN. As bugs are found, new bug branches are branched off of MAIN, which are fixed and merged back to MAIN. When all QA releases are deemed ready for production, a PROD build is made from MAIN. In short MAIN is the one source of truth for code.
If you need to work ahead, an integration-test branch (TEST) can be used to determine what features are "production ready," but feature/issue branches should be merged to MAIN on a case-by-case basis, rather than in bulk from the TEST branch.
Hotfixes can be branched from the PROD label, then fixed, tested and merged back to MAIN for a new PROD release.
I'm going to refer you to a great video on Branch per Feature. It focuses on GIT, but the strategies do not depend on GIT and can be used just as effectively on TFS SCC: https://youtu.be/9SZ7kSQ2424