Search Results

Search found 7322 results on 293 pages for 'shub lahiri a team'.

Page 24/293 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • Creating a new project for Team Foundation Server Basic.

    - by Enrique Lima
    We have installed and configured TFS, we have connected to it using Visual Studio.  Now it is time to get a project created. From Team Explorer, we will right click on the servername\Collection item in the tree to select New Team Project. Once selected, this will open the New Team Project dialog.  Provide a name, then click Next.   The next step is to select a Project Template.  By default you will have 2 available (but there are many downloadable options).  It is important to understand what the templates bring and what options we will live with in the Lifecycle Management option we select. Once selected, click Next. Now we are at the point to specify where our code will be collected, Source Code settings part of the wizard.  Since we are starting new, we will select an empty folder. Click Next. Next we get a Summary view of the options selected. Click Finish. Once the template is downloaded, applied and our choices processed, we have completed the project creation.   This should be our final product …

    Read the article

  • For those of you who are senior developers what do you look for in a new company and development team?

    - by Amy P
    As I move forward in my career new jobs become more difficult to choose between. When I was starting out and for the first 8 years of my career I took the jobs that I could get that would keep me programming on the general technological path that I was on. I am a job hopper, I only stay with a company for between 2 - 3 years. I think that I do this because after 2 years I get bored and unless there are new projects to keep my busy I no longer find work interesting. Now that I am becoming more experienced it is more important for me to only apply for jobs that are interesting and will move my career and my skill set forward. My problem now is that I keep finding jobs where the projects appear to be interesting during the interview but once I get in the company I find the development environment is sub-par and the development team is disjointed. I feel like I am asking the wrong questions during the interview process and don't know what to look for to make sure that the environment I will be working in will be a good one. Now my question: For those of you who are senior developers what do you look for in a new company and development team? I am looking for the key qualities in a company and development team that you look for when interviewing with a company. These qualities are the ones that would give you hints that the company will be a good one to work for.

    Read the article

  • How can my team avoid frequent errors after refactoring?

    - by SDD64
    to give you a little background: I work for a company with roughly twelve Ruby on Rails developers (+/- interns). Remote work is common. Our product is made out of two parts: a rather fat core, and thin up to big customer projects built upon it. Customer projects usually expand the core. Overwriting of key features does not happen. I might add that the core has some rather bad parts that are in urgent need of refactorings. There are specs, but mostly for the customer projects. The worst part of the core are untested (as it should be...). The developers are split into two teams, working with one or two PO for each sprint. Usually, one customer project is strictly associated with one of the teams and POs. Now our problem: Rather frequently, we break each others stuff. Some one from Team A expands or refactors the core feature Y, causing unexpected errors for one of Team B's customer projects. Mostly, the changes are not announced over the teams, so the bugs hit almost always unexpected. Team B, including the PO, thought about feature Y to be stable and did not test it before releasing, unaware of the changes. How to get rid of those problems? What kind of 'announcement technique' can you recommend me?

    Read the article

  • On saving an new active record, in what order are the associated objects saved?

    - by Bryan
    In rails, when saving an active_record object, its associated objects will be saved as well. But has_one and has_many association have different order in saving objects. I have three simplified models: class Team < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :players has_one :coach end class Player < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :team validates_presence_of :team_id end class Coach < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :team validates_presence_of :team_id end I expected that when team.save is called, team should be saved before its associated coach and players. I use the following code to test these models: t = Team.new team.coach = Coach.new team.save! team.save! returns true. But in another test: t = Team.new team.players << Player.new team.save! team.save! gives the following error: > ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid: > Validation failed: Players is invalid I figured out that team.save! saves objects in the following order: 1) players, 2) team, and 3) coach. This is why I got the error: When a player is saved, team doesn't yet have a id, so validates_presence_of :team_id fails in player. Can someone explain to me why objects are saved in this order? This seems not logical to me.

    Read the article

  • Saving an active record, in what order are the associated objects saved?

    - by Bryan
    In rails, when saving an active_record object, its associated objects will be saved as well. But has_one and has_many association have different order in saving objects. I have three simplified models: class Team < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :players has_one :coach end class Player < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :team validates_presence_of :team_id end class Coach < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :team validates_presence_of :team_id end I expected that when team.save is called, team should be saved before its associated coach and players. I use the following code to test these models: t = Team.new team.coach = Coach.new team.save! team.save! returns true. But in another test: t = Team.new team.players << Player.new team.save! team.save! gives the following error: > ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid: > Validation failed: Players is invalid I figured out that team.save! saves objects in the following order: 1) players, 2) team, and 3) coach. This is why I got the error: When a player is saved, team doesn't yet have a id, so validates_presence_of :team_id fails in player. Can someone explain to me why objects are saved in this order? This seems not logical to me.

    Read the article

  • Difference in VISUAL STUDIO VERSIONS

    - by karthik ram
    I would like to understand some fundamental VS version differences, What is the difference between Visual Studio 2008 and Visual Studio 2008 Team System? Does the Team System 2008 include VS2008, TFS 2008 & Team Explorer 2008? Furthermore, what is the difference betwene Team System 2008 and Team Suite 2008? I beleive there are no more Team Suites or Team Systems in 2010? Does Visual Studio Ultimate 2010 include all Team System components, like TFS 2010 & Team Explorer 2010, so in effect it is like an upgrade of Visual Studio 2008 Team System? Or does TFS 2010 & Team Explorer 2010 need to be installed separately?

    Read the article

  • Upgrade TFS 2010 build server to support .net 4.5

    - by JustEngland
    What is needed in the tfs 2010 build agent, to build .net 4.5 projects, in tfs 2008 we had to set the MSBuildPath property, but the configuration seems to be different in 2010. I get the following error message. (614): The imported project "C:\Program Files (x86)\MSBuild\Microsoft\VisualStudio\v11.0\WebApplications\Microsoft.WebApplication.targets" was not found. Confirm that the path in the declaration is correct, and that the file exists on disk. How we handled it in 2008 http://blogs.msdn.com/b/willbar/archive/2009/11/01/building-net-4-0-applications-using-team-build-2008.aspx

    Read the article

  • How to install a new TFS checkin policy on a TFS 2010 server?

    - by rayrayrayraydog
    We've recently upgraded our TFS server to TFS 2010 from 2008. We've been researching a couple new add-on checkin policies we want to install. The only problem is that all documentation I can find on adding new policies to the server appears to be specific to TFS 2008 or earlier. Those steps involve adding new keys in the registry which do not exist on our 2010 TFS server. Does anybody know where the process to install new checkin policies on a TFS 2010 server so they can be applied to Team Projects is documented? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Code-First Database Creation During TFS 2010 CI Build

    - by jedimindtrickster
    I would like to automate code-first database generation during the automated CI build of a web project in Team Foundation Server 2010. When run locally the tests create a code-first database specified by the connection string in the app.config of the tests project. How do I configure the TFS Build Configuration to mimic this behaviour on the TFS build server? Edit The problem, it turns out, was that the TFS build server was successfully running the test which was using the default connection string in the app.config which pointed to the local SQL Server, not where I expected it. The solution was to use SlowCheetah on the TFS server as a means to transform the App.config file using the QA transform as per this blog article.

    Read the article

  • Can TFS 2010 be installed onto a single server and in a Workgroup (not AD)

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, currently, we're using TFS2010 at our office and we're about to move. Part of that move is a split of teams. Our team will get their own servers. So we need to build our own TFS server and add our current projects to that. Right now, our TFS server exists on TWO servers - one for TFS and one for our Continuous Integration .. i think that's a build controller or something. That really suxs for us - having TWO servers instead of one for all our source control. We love CI and how it works (after the massive massive pain it was to get our VS2010 solution to CI + web Deploy) ... but it does work. So - can we do this with ONE server? Also, we don't want to have an Active Directory. Will this also work?

    Read the article

  • How do you install a new build controller in TFS?

    - by JL.
    I am not looking for detailed instructions, I just want the quick and dirty overview. We have an existing TFS infrastructure, I am looking to install a new build controller for 1 team project. Do I need to create a new VM and install TFS (configure as controller) and then link it from the VM to the main TFS instance? OR Do I need to create the new VM, install TFS (configure as controller) and then - From the main TFS admin console on the main TFS server - add the new controller? Thanks in advance?

    Read the article

  • Working with Legacy code #5: The blackhole.

    - by andrewstopford
    Someone creates a class or series of classes for something, the classes are big in size with large complicated methods. The effort is a sea of technical debt for the entire team but in the thick of the daily chaos it is lost. With out the coder talking to the team, with no team code policy and no code reviews (and action points) it remains. Pretty soon the team forget about that code. A few weeks\months\years goes by, some of the team may have left, some may remain but business asks for the team to add to that code. The team is now looking at a black hole, no one knows how it works, what it does, what it is for, it is a smelly hell hole and the deadline is fast approaching. The team now tries to change the code, with no approach at unit tests or refactoring in fear of breaking the black hole the team do just that and the business have just lost money. If you are faced with a black hole you need to look back over my series, even a black hole in what might seem like a clean unit tested application. Don't be fooled into thinking that legacy code does not apply to your code base.  The next stage is don't let blackholes in your codebase. Effective code reviews, team communication and good overal team coding policies will really help. Even if you are faced with a deadline do not let them appear, stop, take stock, what can be done and who can help. If you allow them through they will grow and grow and grow and the technical debt will hit you like a tidal wave soon enough,.  

    Read the article

  • Database Schema Usage

    - by CrazyHorse
    I have a question regarding the appropriate use of SQL Server database schemas and was hoping that some database gurus might be able to offer some guidance around best practice. Just to give a bit of background, my team has recently shrunk to 2 people and we have just been merged with another 6 person team. My team had set up a SQL Server environment running off a desktop backing up to another desktop (and nightly to the network), whilst the new team has a formal SQL Server environment, running on a dedicated server, with backups and maintenance all handled by a dedicated team. So far it's good news for my team. Now to the query. My team designed all our tables to belong to a 3-letter schema name (e.g. User = USR, General = GEN, Account = ACC) which broadly speaking relate to specific applications, although there is a lot of overlap. My new team has come from an Access background and have implemented their tables within dbo with a 3-letter perfix followed by "_tbl" so the examples above would be dbo.USR_tblTableName, dbo.GEN_tblTableName and dbo.ACC_tblTableName. Further to this, neither my old team nor my new team has gone live with their SQL Servers yet (we're both coincidentally migrating away from Access environments) and the new team have said they're willing to consider adopting our approach if we can explain how this would be beneficial. We are not anticipating handling table updates at schema level, as we will be using application-level logins. Also, with regards to the unwieldiness of the 7-character prefix, I'm not overly concerned myself as we're using LINQ almost exclusively so the tables can simply be renamed in the DMBL (although I know that presents some challenges when we update the DBML). So therefore, given that both teams need to be aligned with one another, can anyone offer any convincing arguments either way?

    Read the article

  • Should a c# dev switch to VB.net when the team language base is mixed?

    - by jjr2527
    I recently joined a new development team where the language preferences are mixed on the .net platform. Dev 1: Knows VB.net, does not know c# Dev 2: Knows VB.net, does not know c# Dev 3: Knows c# and VB.net, prefers c# Dev 4: Knows c# and VB6(VB.net should be pretty easy to pick up), prefers c# It seems to me that the thought leaders in the .net space are c# devs almost universally. I also thought that some 3rd party tools didn't support VB.net but when I started looking into it I didn't find any good examples. I would prefer to get the whole team on c# but if there isn't any good reason to force the issue aside from preference then I don't think that is the right choice. Are there any reasons I should lead folks away from VB.net?

    Read the article

  • Should a c# dev switch to VB.net when the team language base is mixed?

    - by jjr2527
    I recently joined a new development team where the language preferences are mixed on the .net platform. Dev 1: Knows VB.net, does not know c# Dev 2: Knows VB.net, does not know c# Dev 3: Knows c# and VB.net, prefers c# Dev 4: Knows c# and VB6(VB.net should be pretty easy to pick up), prefers c# It seems to me that the thought leaders in the .net space are c# devs almost universally. I also thought that some 3rd party tools didn't support VB.net but when I started looking into it I didn't find any good examples. I would prefer to get the whole team on c# but if there isn't any good reason to force the issue aside from preference then I don't think that is the right choice. Are there any reasons I should lead folks away from VB.net?

    Read the article

  • Evaluating Scrum - is it okay to have people with multiple roles in a Scrum team?

    - by Wayne M
    I'm evaluating some Agile-style methodologies for possible introduction to my team. With Scrum, is it allowable to have the same person perform multiple roles? We have a small team of four developers and a web designer; we don't really have a lead (I fulfill this role), QA testers or business analysts, and all of our development tasks come from the CIO. Automated testing is seen as a total waste of time, and everything focuses on speed and not quality. What will happen is the CIO will come up with a development task (whether a feature or a bug) and give it to a developer (not to the whole team, to an individual, often in private or out of the blue) who is then expected to get it completed. The CIO doesn't gather requirements beyond the initial idea (and this has bitten us before as we'll implement something only to find out that none of the end users can use the feature, because they weren't consulted or even informed about it before we developed it, and in a panic we'll be told to revert the change) but requires say in/approval of everything that we do. First things first, is a Scrum style something to consider to introduce some standards and practices? From reading, Scrum seems to rely on a bit more trust and communication and focuses more on project management than on development, which is something we are completely devoid of as we don't have any semblance of project management at present. Second, if it can work is it unreasonable for someone, let's say myself, to act as both ScrumMaster and a developer? Or for a developer to also be the Product Owner (although chances are this will be the CIO, who isn't a developer)? I realize the Scrum Master and the Product Owner should be different people but at the same time I don't think we have anyone who has the qualities of a Product Owner (chances are it would turn into a "I need all these stories, I don't care how but get it done" type of deal and/or any freeze would be unfrozen on a whim). It seems to me that I might need to pick and choose pieces of Scrum/XP/Lean to compensate for how things are done currently, as it's highly unlikely that the mentality can be changed; for instance Pair Programming would never fly (seen as a waste, you get half the tasks done if you need two people for everything), TDD would be a hard sell, but short cycles would be welcomed.

    Read the article

  • What tools are available for remote communication when working from home or with a distributed team?

    - by Ryan Hayes
    My supervisor is allowing my team to dip our toes in the water of working from home. Considering a recent aquisition of another company is requiring some employees to love this new idea which will hack up to an hour off their commute into work every morning, I really want this to succeed. In order to make it a success, we need good tools to make our lives a lot easier. We currently are set up with OpenVPN, and Team Foundation Server 2010 with SharePoint 2010, and use Live Messenger (for SharePoint integration and easier remote desktop) for IM. These are just what we use (and they are currently working well) , but you can suggest other products. So, what are some great tools that will helps us collaborate, communicate, and generally work together when we're hours apart?

    Read the article

  • How Important is Project Team Communication in the Public Sector?

    - by Melissa Centurio Lopes
    Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} By Paul Bender, Director of Public Administration Strategy, Oracle Primavera It goes without saying that communication between project team members is a core competency that connects every member of a project team to a common set of strategies, goals and actions. If these components are not effectively shared by project leads and understood by stakeholders, project outcomes can be jeopardized and budgets may incur unnecessary risk. As reported by PMI’s 2013 Pulse of the Profession, an organization’s ability to meet project timelines, budgets and especially goals significantly impacts its ability to survive—and even thrive. The Pulse study revealed that the most crucial success factor in project management is effective communication to all stakeholders—a critical core competency for public agencies. PMI’s 2013 Pulse of the Profession report revealed that US$135 million is at risk for every US$1 billion spent on a project. Further research on the importance of effective project team communication uncovers that a startling 56 percent (US$75 million of that US$135 million) is at risk due to ineffective communication. Simply stated: public agencies cannot execute strategic initiatives unless they can effectively communicate their strategic alignment and business benefits. Executives and project managers around the world agree that poor communication between project team members contributes to project failure. A Forbes Insights 2010 Strategic Initiatives Study “Adapting Corporate Strategy to the Changing Economy,” found that nine out of ten CEOs believe that communication is critical to the success of their strategic initiatives, and nearly half of respondents cite communication as an integral and active component of their strategic planning and execution process. Project managers see it similarly from their side as well. According to PMI’s Pulse research, 55 percent of project managers agree that effective communication to all stakeholders is the most critical success factor in project management. As we all know, not all projects succeed. On average, two in five projects do not meet their original goals and business intent, and one-half of those unsuccessful projects are related to ineffective communication. Results reveal that while all aspects of project communication can be challenging to public agencies, the biggest problem areas are: A gap in understanding the business benefits. Challenges surrounding the language used to deliver project-related information, which is often unclear and peppered with project management jargon. Public agencies -- federal, state, and local -- have difficulty communicating with the appropriate levels with clarity and detail. This difficulty is likely exacerbated by the divide between each key audience and its understanding of project-specific, technical language. For those involved in public sector project and portfolio management, I would be interested to hear your thoughts and please visit Primavera EPPM solutions for public sector.

    Read the article

  • How should I manage a team with different skill levels?

    - by Jon Purdy
    I'll be working on a software project with some friends of mine, and I've been appointed technical lead. None of these guys is a bad programmer at all, but I do have significantly more experience than them. I need to be able to distribute the work among everyone on the team, while also making sure that we don't tread on one another's toes; that they meet the relatively high standards of quality and scalability that we need to make this project successful, without requiring me to review everything they commit. How should I maintain standards while avoiding micromanagement? Is it enough to make some diagrams, schedule some code reviews, and trust that I'll be able to fix anything that they might break, or should I go the TDD route and write explicit tests for the team to satisfy?

    Read the article

  • What are the most important programming skills you need to improve as a team Leader or project manager?

    - by Aba Dov
    I decided to ask this question after I read the valuable answers to the great question What is the single most effective thing you did to improve your programming skills? and after attending Ad Burns "Secrets of a rock star programmer". It made me think about me and what programming skills I try to improve. I came to realize that there should be a difference in the programming skills you try to improve as developer and the programming skills you should improve as a team leader or project manager. My question is: What are the most important programming skills you need to improve as a team Leader or project manager? What would you recommend to others that want to improve?

    Read the article

  • Is it okay to have people with multiple roles in a Scrum team?

    - by Wayne M
    I'm evaluating some Agile-style methodologies for possible introduction to my team. With Scrum, is it allowable to have the same person perform multiple roles? We have a small team of four developers and a web designer; we don't really have a lead (I fulfill this role), QA testers or business analysts, and all of our development tasks come from the CIO. Automated testing is seen as a total waste of time, and everything focuses on speed and not quality. What will happen is the CIO will come up with a development task (whether a feature or a bug) and give it to a developer (not to the whole team, to an individual, often in private or out of the blue) who is then expected to get it completed. The CIO doesn't gather requirements beyond the initial idea (and this has bitten us before as we'll implement something only to find out that none of the end users can use the feature, because they weren't consulted or even informed about it before we developed it, and in a panic we'll be told to revert the change) but requires say in/approval of everything that we do. First things first, is a Scrum style something to consider to introduce some standards and practices? From reading, Scrum seems to rely on a bit more trust and communication and focuses more on project management than on development, which is something we are completely devoid of as we don't have any semblance of project management at present. Second, if it can work is it unreasonable for someone, let's say myself, to act as both ScrumMaster and a developer? Or for a developer to also be the Product Owner (although chances are this will be the CIO, who isn't a developer)? I realize the Scrum Master and the Product Owner should be different people but at the same time I don't think we have anyone who has the qualities of a Product Owner (chances are it would turn into a "I need all these stories, I don't care how but get it done" type of deal and/or any freeze would be unfrozen on a whim). It seems to me that I might need to pick and choose pieces of Scrum/XP/Lean to compensate for how things are done currently, as it's highly unlikely that the mentality can be changed; for instance Pair Programming would never fly (seen as a waste, you get half the tasks done if you need two people for everything), TDD would be a hard sell, but short cycles would be welcomed.

    Read the article

  • What arguments can I use to "sell" the BDD concept to a team reluctant to adopt it?

    - by S.Robins
    I am a bit of a vocal proponent of the BDD methodology. I've been applying BDD for a couple of years now, and have adopted StoryQ as my framework of choice when developing DotNet applications. Even though I have been unit testing for many years, and had previously shifted to a test-first approach, I've found that I get much more value out of using a BDD framework, because my tests capture the intent of the requirements in relatively clear English within my code, and because my tests can execute multiple assertions without ending the test halfway through - meaning I can see which specific assertions pass/fail at a glance without debugging to prove it. This has really been the tip of the iceberg for me, as I've also noticed that I am able to debug both test and implementation code in a more targeted manner, with the result that my productivity has grown significantly, and that I can more easily determine where a failure occurs if a problem happens to make it all the way to the integration build due to the output that makes its way into the build logs. Further, the StoryQ api has a lovely fluent syntax that is easy to learn and which can be applied in an extraordinary number of ways, requiring no external dependencies in order to use it. So with all of these benefits, you would think it an easy to introduce the concept to the rest of the team. Unfortunately, the other team members are reluctant to even look at StoryQ to evaluate it properly (let alone entertain the idea of applying BDD), and have convinced each other to try and remove a number of StoryQ elements from our own core testing framework, even though they originally supported the use of StoryQ, and that it doesn't impact on any other part of our testing system. Doing so would end up increasing my workload significantly overall and really goes against the grain, as I am convinced through practical experience that it is a better way to work in a test-first manner in our particular working environment, and can only lead to greater improvements in the quality of our software, given I've found it easier to stick with test first using BDD. So the question really comes down to the following: What arguments can I use to really drive the point home that it would be better to use StoryQ, or at the very least apply the BDD methodology? Can you point me to any anecdotal evidence that I can use to support my argument to adopt BDD as our standard method of choice? What counter arguments can you think of that could suggest that my wish to convert the team efforts to BDD might be in error? Yes, I'm happy to be proven wrong provided the argument is a sound one. NOTE: I am not advocating that we rewrite our tests in their entirety, but rather to simply start working in a different manner for all future testing work.

    Read the article

  • Why did the team at LMAX use Java and design the architecture to avoid GC at all cost?

    - by kadaj
    Why did the team at LMAX design the LMAX Disruptor in Java but all their design points to minimizing GC use? If one does not want to have GC run then why use a garbage collected language? Their optimizations, the level of hardware knowledge and the thought they put are just awesome but why Java? I'm not against Java or anything, but why a GC language? Why not use something like D or any other language without GC but allows efficient code? Is it that the team is most familiar with Java or does Java possess some unique advantage that I am not seeing? Say they develop it using D with manual memory management, what would be the difference? They would have to think low level (which they already are), but they can squeeze the best performance out of the system as it's native.

    Read the article

  • The need for source control software - Team Foundation Server? or something different?

    - by l0Ft
    Recently, Here at the company, more than one programmer was appointed in charge for a LightSwitch(C#) software development project and immediately there was a need of some sort of source control/sync. We have never used Team Foundation Server but we'd gladly use it if it's worth it. Is it the right tool to use for synchronising code between programmers? Does it have the needed features? Do you have any other tool in mind? (I have used TortoiseSVN but it was too simple and 'texty' if you know what I mean, we need a professional tool) What other features does Team Foundation has that we can use? (if you did not understand any of the above please ask me to clarify further)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >