Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Office migration from Source Depot to Git

danielsada.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 290 posts

Re: Microsoft Office migration from Source Depot to Git

#101

Post by mickeyp »

o11c wrote: post #30
com2kid wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At one point source depot was Toincredibly advanced, and there are still features that it had that git doesn't. Directory mapping being a stand out feature! Being able to only pull down certain directories from a depot and also remap where they are locally, and even have the same file be in multiple places. Makes sharing dependencies across multiple projects really easy, and a lot of complicated tooling around "monor…

As always, git's answer to the problem is "stop being afraid of `git submodule`." Cross-repo commits are not a problem as long as you understand "it only counts as truly committed if the child repo's commit is referenced from the parent repo".

Git submodules are awful. Using subversion's own submodule system should be mandatory for anyone claiming Git's implementation is somehow worthwhile or good.

Re: Microsoft Office migration from Source Depot to Git

#103

Post by sofixa »

dshacker wrote: post #42
3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #10

We communicated the same information through multiple channels: weekly emails, Teams, wiki docs, team presentations, and office hours. The rule: if something was important, people heard it at least 3 times through different mediums. If only this were standard. Last week I received the only notification that a bunch of internal systems were being deleted in two weeks . No scream test, no archiving, just straight delet…

Even with this, there were many surprised people. I'm still amazed at all of the people that can ignore everything and just open their IDE and code (and maybe never see teams or email)

Alternatively, communications fatigue. How many emails does the average employee get with nonsense that doesn't apply to them? Oh cool, we have a new VP. Oh cool, that department had a charity drive. Oh cool, system I've never heard of is getting replaced by a new one, favourite of this guy I've never heard of.

Add in the various spam (be it attacks or just random vendors trying to sell something).

At some point, people start to zone out and barely skim, if that, most of their work emails. Same with work chats, which are also more prone to people sharing random memes or photos from their picnic last week or their latest lego set.

Re: Microsoft Office migration from Source Depot to Git

#104

Post by AdamN »

shakna wrote: post #83
dshacker wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d be surprised at the amount of people at Microsoft that their entire career have been at Microsoft (pre-git-creation) that never used Git. Git is relatively new (2005) but source control systems are not.

That's still two decades. Git is so popular Microsoft bought one of the major forges 7 years ago. To have never touched it in the last decade? You've got a gap in your CV.

This is one of the problems at big tech - people 10-20 years in and haven't lived in the outside world. It's a hard problem to solve.

Re: Microsoft Office migration from Source Depot to Git

#105

Post by shakna »

dkdbejwi383 wrote: post #91
stockerta wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone wants to code for hobby, so if their work not uses git then they too will not use it.

Not everyone _can_ code as a hobby. Some of us are old and have families and other commitments

That's when you can only hope that your workplace is one that trains - so the investment isn't one sided.

Re: Microsoft Office migration from Source Depot to Git

#106

Post by AdamN »

dshacker wrote: post #42
3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #10

We communicated the same information through multiple channels: weekly emails, Teams, wiki docs, team presentations, and office hours. The rule: if something was important, people heard it at least 3 times through different mediums. If only this were standard. Last week I received the only notification that a bunch of internal systems were being deleted in two weeks . No scream test, no archiving, just straight delet…

Even with this, there were many surprised people. I'm still amazed at all of the people that can ignore everything and just open their IDE and code (and maybe never see teams or email)

If you read all the notifications you'll never do your actual job. People who just open their IDE and code are to be commended in some respects - but it's a balance of course.

Re: Microsoft Office migration from Source Depot to Git

#107

Post by masklinn »

mickeyp wrote: post #99
masklinn wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> 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.

Re: Microsoft Office migration from Source Depot to Git

#108

Post by codeulike »

dshacker wrote: post #40
BobbyTables2 wrote: post #36

I’d like to know when Microsoft internally migrated away from Visual SourceSafe… They should have recalled it to avoid continued public use…

I didn't even know Microsoft SourceSafe existed.

We used it. We knew no better. It was different then, you might not hear about alternatives unless you went looking for them. Source Safe was integrated with Visual Studio so was an obvious choice for small teams.

Get this; if you wanted to change a file you had to check it out. It was then locked and no-one else could change it. Files were literally read only on your machine unless you checked them out. The 'one at a time please' approach to Source Control (the other approach being 'lets figure out how to merge this later')

Re: Microsoft Office migration from Source Depot to Git

#109

Post by masklinn »

AdamN wrote: post #102

I feel like we're well into the longtail now. Are there other SCM systems or is it the end of history for source control and git is the one and done solution?

Mercurial still has some life to it (excluding Meta’s fork of it), jj is slowly gaining, fossil exists.

And afaik P4 still does good business, because DVCS in general and git in particular remain pretty poor at dealing with large binary assets so it’s really not great for e.g. large gamedev. Unity actually purchased PlasticSCM a few years back, and has it as part of their cloud offering.

Google uses its own VCS called Piper which they developed when they outgrew P4.

Re: Microsoft Office migration from Source Depot to Git

#110

Post by linkpuff »

AdamN wrote: post #102

I feel like we're well into the longtail now. Are there other SCM systems or is it the end of history for source control and git is the one and done solution?

There are some other solutions (like jujutsu, which while using git as storage medium, has some differences in the handling of commits). But I do believe we reached a critical point where git is the one stop shop for all the source control needs despite it's flaws/complexity.
Post reply on HN