Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

TFS is not that bad... the issue is that you have to pay through the teeth to have it and it is not that good.

When it comes out of the box as a bag of bits that you're going to have to configure, hack and code for hours to get what you want you sometimes wonder why you didn't just go SVN + Cruise Control.

For the record, I just wanted my test pass/fails to be emailed to us in a NUnit gui way (red + green). Maybe i'm stupid but that took way too long for a tool that costs so much.




TFS has some redeeming qualities when looked at as part of a holistic software development platform - bug tracking, work items ect. but purely as a source control system it is bad.

Day to day experience is just friction, friction, friction.

And guess what keeping source control and your IDE seperate is actually a good idea. Also why do I care that Alex down the hall has opened a file - what am I supposed to do with that information...


"And guess what keeping source control and your IDE seperate is actually a good idea. "

Too true. Killing time watching your IDE lock up is not fun. Nor is the fact that _some_ IT departments still haven't performed the upgrade from TFS 2005 unservicepacked

.. ..

cries


The fact that you need a licensed product everywhere you want to check out the code, including the server, was a huge PITA for us. VisualSvn did the trick for us at the time.


TFS is that bad. Offline access is non-existent. You can't even record a file addition without a connection to the server. I checked it out at Loopt, but for all it offered, I found SVN + Hudson to do everything we needed better.


Yeah, my experience having to swap to TFS from SVN was awful given the completely connected nature of it. The only way to make it bearable was by adding 3rd party add-ons that should of been there from V1 already.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: