undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmasklinn9mo ago0 comments

Lucky you. Definitely one of the worst tools I’ve had the displeasure of working with. Made worse by people building on top of it for some insane reason.

0 comments

TowerTall9mo ago

I remember when we migrated from Visual Source Safe to TFS at my place of work. I was in charge of the migration and we hit errors and opened a ticket with Microsoft Premier Support. The ticket ended up being assigned to one of creators of Source Safe who replied "What you are seeing is not possible". He did manage to solve it in the end after a lot of head scratching.

moron4hire9mo ago

It was at least a little better than CVS, but with SVN available at the same time, never understood the mentality of the offices that I worked at using Source Safe instead of SVN.

masklinnOP9mo ago

> It was at least a little better than CVS

Highly debatable.

CVS has a horrendous UI, but didn’t have a tendency to corrupt itself at the drop of a hat and didn’t require locking files to edit them by default (and then require a repository admin to come in and unlock files when a colleague went on holidays with files checked out). Also didn’t require shared write access to an SMB share (one of the reasons it corrupted itself so regularly).

moron4hire9mo ago

Uhh, CVS definitely regularly corrupted itself. I nearly lost my senior research thesis in undergrad because of it. The only thing that saved me was understanding professors and the fact that I could drive back home to my parents' house and get back to my review in 30 minutes, where I had a good copy of my code I could put on an Iomega Zip disk from my desktop instead of the corrupted copy we couldn't pull from CVS in the CS lab.

mickeyp9mo ago

Agreed. It had a funny habit of corrupting its own data store also. That's absolutely what you want in a source control system.

It sucked; but honestly, not using anything is even worse than SourceSafe.

masklinnOP9mo ago

> Agreed. It had a funny habit of corrupting its own data store also. That's absolutely what you want in a source control system.

I still ‘member articles calling it a source destruction system. Good times.

> It sucked; but honestly, not using anything is even worse than SourceSafe.

There have always been alternatives. And even when you didn’t use anything, at least you knew what to expect. Files didn’t magically disappear from old tarballs.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

TowerTall9mo ago

moron4hire9mo ago

It was at least a little better than CVS, but with SVN available at the same time, never understood the mentality of the offices that I worked at using Source Safe instead of SVN.

masklinnOP9mo ago

> It was at least a little better than CVS

Highly debatable.

moron4hire9mo ago

mickeyp9mo ago

Agreed. It had a funny habit of corrupting its own data store also. That's absolutely what you want in a source control system.

It sucked; but honestly, not using anything is even worse than SourceSafe.

masklinnOP9mo ago

> Agreed. It had a funny habit of corrupting its own data store also. That's absolutely what you want in a source control system.

I still ‘member articles calling it a source destruction system. Good times.

> It sucked; but honestly, not using anything is even worse than SourceSafe.

There have always been alternatives. And even when you didn’t use anything, at least you knew what to expect. Files didn’t magically disappear from old tarballs.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse