4 ms·

Sadly VS 2013 has a huge regression which makes it a no-go for my team over at Stack Exchange, any changes made to the server settings are saved to the project

by jc4p 13y ago

Sadly VS 2013 has a huge regression which makes it a no-go for my team over at Stack Exchange, any changes made to the server settings are saved to the project file rather than the per-user settings file, it's been reported but doesn't look like it's going to get fixed soon: http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/800003/the-apply-server-settings-to-all-users-store-in-project-file-option-is-missing-in-vs2013 http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/8...

acqq 13y ago
Well they fully acknowledged it's not a desired behavior and apparently they plan to fix it: "Posted by Microsoft on 9/23/2013 at 3:03 PM Thank you for bringing up this issue. Unfortunately, this functionality was lost when the web project properties page was refactored. We are working to get this feature back into the product. For now, if you have a project with this setting unchecked in VS 2012, and open it in VS 2013 it will respect your individual user settings until the first time that the servers section is modified on the web project properties page."
- jc4p 13y ago
  Yeah they've acknowledged it, we're not expecting it to get fixed anytime before Update 1 however, which is usually some months later.
  - shanselman 13y ago
    Checking now.
    - shanselman 13y ago
      This is being QA'ed now and will be in the first VS update.
ajross 13y ago
It seems to this curmudgeon is that the bug is in the whole metaphor of a "project file" being storage for a bunch of UI state set in a bunch of configuration tools and not, y'know, part of the source code of the project and subject to the same kind of engineering process. You play this kind of game with "automation" and you get burned. Build, configuration and deployment management are hard software problems and they need to be solved by smart people and real tools, not checkboxes and file selectors.
- csmuk 13y ago
  This. Visual Studio to be blunt is a fucking nightmare in this department. It's cost us hours fixing configuration problems. We have 50 developers though so are a large team.
- blt 13y ago
  I agree. I love Intellisense but I wish Visual Studio would stay the fuck out of the way everywhere else. It's particularly annoying how all the checkbox settings are only applied to the active configuration unless you change a dropdown menu... can't even count how many times I made a change to Debug/x64 only and then had to go back and fix it later.
  - malkia 13y ago
    Same here. I'm in the habit now of making sure that I've selected all target configurations, then all target architectures and then put the settings. But even then, I need different settings for debug/release or x86/amd64 - and it's not really helping when there is incosistent naming across SDK's coming from Microsoft itself - where you can't match with one variable (say $(Target)) the given architecture, and it seems every group at Microsoft follows different conventions of how to name things.
- bruceboughton 13y ago
  The project file is a source file and should be in source control.
  - 13y ago
klausjensen 13y ago
Let's send that bug to the top by voting.
- shanselman 13y ago
  Fixed.
disdev 13y ago
Seems to be a theme. I had to re-do our TeamCity integration when they stripped out the IIS Path property out of the project file in favor of publishing profiles. For a shop like ours, where we have lots of small projects, automating the deployment is pretty critical. I don't want to have to add 120 publish profiles when previously I could rely on the project settings. Ultimately, we hacked together a fix, but I'm still wary of their changes.
philliphaydon 13y ago
So basically you're saying is Stack Exchange development team does what ever the fuck they want to do? 10 developers can have the project setup 10 different ways? :S Nothing worse than going sitting with a developer to find out their setup is fucked. This bug is more of an issue for OSS than a company. IMO.
- jc4p 13y ago
  Did you read the examples in the link? The issue is with different server settings when running locally which is one of the configuration settings that I think anyone can edit to anything they want. Why is it outrageous if someone wants to run their local server at a different port than someone else?
  - philliphaydon 13y ago
    Running the same projects on the same team and you want to run it in a different configuration? ... Sigh.
    - jc4p 13y ago
      At this point I'm fairly certain you're just trolling me... can you give me any example of why you frown upon running with different local configurations? We have a dev environment where all our code builds upon checkout and then we have our own local environments to actually do development on. What's the problem with someone deciding that they want to run at hostname alias so-and-so on their local machine or port whatever instead of what's the default?
      - 300bps 13y ago
        Sadly, I've all but stopped replying to anyone with less than 500 karma here. Karma is so easy to get on this site that anyone that's been here for any length of time that can't get over that threshold is probably either intentionally trolling or has difficulty with common courtesy. Case in point, where philliphaydon came out blasting with: So basically you're saying is Stack Exchange development team does what ever the fuck they want to do? You didn't give anywhere near enough information for someone to come to the conclusion he came to. And the anger with which he presents it is uncalled for.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
shanselman 13y ago
Ok, I talked to them and this is fixed and waiting for QA. It will be in the first 2013 update, soon.
- jc4p 13y ago
  Yay, thanks Scott!
- S_A_P 13y ago
  Visual Studio 2013 sp1 now includes Scott Hanselman?!?! This will do wonders for my productivity!!! Edit: Scott initially said "I will be in the update", not it will be in the update...
  - shanselman 13y ago
    ;)
- newsreader 13y ago
  This is great. Thanks for everything you do for the community of developers (.NET and not .NET)
  - avenger123 13y ago
    I definitely second this. To me, to a large extent Scott is the voice of Microsoft. I still look back at his answer on Quora regarding why Microsoft as a stack and am amazed at his ability to largely remain objective.
    - shanselman 13y ago
      hugs
- _random_ 13y ago
  Oh, could you please talk to them and tell them that full-screen XAML and HTML5/JS are both not good fit for enterprise LOB apps? Please!

by jc4p 13y ago

acqq 13y ago

Well they fully acknowledged it's not a desired behavior and apparently they plan to fix it: "Posted by Microsoft on 9/23/2013 at 3:03 PM Thank you for bringing up this issue. Unfortunately, this functionality was lost when the web project properties page was refactored. We are working to get this feature back into the product. For now, if you have a project with this setting unchecked in VS 2012, and open it in VS 2013 it will respect your individual user settings until the first time that the servers section is modified on the web project properties page."

jc4p 13y ago
Yeah they've acknowledged it, we're not expecting it to get fixed anytime before Update 1 however, which is usually some months later.
- shanselman 13y ago
  Checking now.
  - shanselman 13y ago
    This is being QA'ed now and will be in the first VS update.

ajross 13y ago

It seems to this curmudgeon is that the bug is in the whole metaphor of a "project file" being storage for a bunch of UI state set in a bunch of configuration tools and not, y'know, part of the source code of the project and subject to the same kind of engineering process. You play this kind of game with "automation" and you get burned. Build, configuration and deployment management are hard software problems and they need to be solved by smart people and real tools, not checkboxes and file selectors.

csmuk 13y ago
This. Visual Studio to be blunt is a fucking nightmare in this department. It's cost us hours fixing configuration problems. We have 50 developers though so are a large team.
blt 13y ago
I agree. I love Intellisense but I wish Visual Studio would stay the fuck out of the way everywhere else. It's particularly annoying how all the checkbox settings are only applied to the active configuration unless you change a dropdown menu... can't even count how many times I made a change to Debug/x64 only and then had to go back and fix it later.
- malkia 13y ago
  Same here. I'm in the habit now of making sure that I've selected all target configurations, then all target architectures and then put the settings. But even then, I need different settings for debug/release or x86/amd64 - and it's not really helping when there is incosistent naming across SDK's coming from Microsoft itself - where you can't match with one variable (say $(Target)) the given architecture, and it seems every group at Microsoft follows different conventions of how to name things.
bruceboughton 13y ago
The project file is a source file and should be in source control.
- 13y ago

klausjensen 13y ago

Let's send that bug to the top by voting.

shanselman 13y ago
Fixed.

disdev 13y ago

Seems to be a theme. I had to re-do our TeamCity integration when they stripped out the IIS Path property out of the project file in favor of publishing profiles. For a shop like ours, where we have lots of small projects, automating the deployment is pretty critical. I don't want to have to add 120 publish profiles when previously I could rely on the project settings. Ultimately, we hacked together a fix, but I'm still wary of their changes.

philliphaydon 13y ago

So basically you're saying is Stack Exchange development team does what ever the fuck they want to do? 10 developers can have the project setup 10 different ways? :S Nothing worse than going sitting with a developer to find out their setup is fucked. This bug is more of an issue for OSS than a company. IMO.

jc4p 13y ago
Did you read the examples in the link? The issue is with different server settings when running locally which is one of the configuration settings that I think anyone can edit to anything they want. Why is it outrageous if someone wants to run their local server at a different port than someone else?
- philliphaydon 13y ago
  Running the same projects on the same team and you want to run it in a different configuration? ... Sigh.
  - jc4p 13y ago
    At this point I'm fairly certain you're just trolling me... can you give me any example of why you frown upon running with different local configurations? We have a dev environment where all our code builds upon checkout and then we have our own local environments to actually do development on. What's the problem with someone deciding that they want to run at hostname alias so-and-so on their local machine or port whatever instead of what's the default?
    - 300bps 13y ago
      Sadly, I've all but stopped replying to anyone with less than 500 karma here. Karma is so easy to get on this site that anyone that's been here for any length of time that can't get over that threshold is probably either intentionally trolling or has difficulty with common courtesy. Case in point, where philliphaydon came out blasting with: So basically you're saying is Stack Exchange development team does what ever the fuck they want to do? You didn't give anywhere near enough information for someone to come to the conclusion he came to. And the anger with which he presents it is uncalled for.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

shanselman 13y ago

Ok, I talked to them and this is fixed and waiting for QA. It will be in the first 2013 update, soon.

jc4p 13y ago
Yay, thanks Scott!
S_A_P 13y ago
Visual Studio 2013 sp1 now includes Scott Hanselman?!?! This will do wonders for my productivity!!! Edit: Scott initially said "I will be in the update", not it will be in the update...
- shanselman 13y ago
  ;)
newsreader 13y ago
This is great. Thanks for everything you do for the community of developers (.NET and not .NET)
- avenger123 13y ago
  I definitely second this. To me, to a large extent Scott is the voice of Microsoft. I still look back at his answer on Quora regarding why Microsoft as a stack and am amazed at his ability to largely remain objective.
  - shanselman 13y ago
    hugs
_random_ 13y ago
Oh, could you please talk to them and tell them that full-screen XAML and HTML5/JS are both not good fit for enterprise LOB apps? Please!