TFS Reviews

The interface is good with TFS.

I am looking for some pull request features, like Git.  I do not see a pull request option for branching and merging. I would also like a true command prompt like Git.

I have been using TFS for the past fourteen or fifteen years.

TFS is definitely stable.

TFS is scalable because it is managed by Microsoft internally. 

Technical support is good. We have optional support with Microsoft.

We previously used VSTS however TFS is a far better product.

The initial setup was very easy and straightforward.

The overall price of TFS is good.

I think most people are working with Git. We feel comfortable with TFS because we are already used to it. TFS is a good product and you can continue working with it.

I am overall happy with TFS and would rate it a nine on a scale of one to ten. 

I use TFS as a code repository for version control.

The most valuable features of the code check-in and check-out capabilities.

The code branch capability and build features are helpful.

The interface is easy to navigate.

I would like to see the reporting features expanded so that I can see details on the users connected to all of the projects. As it is now, I can see the details of a single project by selecting it. However, I cannot see all of the scheduled projects at once.

I have been using TFS for between seven and eight years.

TFC is a stable solution.

This is not a scalable product. We have about 35 users in our company.

We have not been in contact with technical support.

Prior to TFS, I did not work with another similar product.

The initial setup is easy and can be completed within a day.

The pricing is reasonable at this time. 

We are currently in the process of upgrading to the 2019 version, which has many more features than does the 2017 version.

My advice to anybody who is considering TFS is that once you get used to it, the interface is very easy to navigate.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Version Control: TFS offers both the centralized “TFVC” version control technology as well as the distributed “Git” version control technology.

TFVC is a file and folder based version control system, which includes the ability to check-out, check-in, label, lock, branch, and merge. The security model is extremely granular allowing permissions to be set at the individual file, folder, or branch level (with inheritance as needed). The Git implementation is comparable to other on-premise Git offerings, such as Bitbucket and GitLab. The Git feature set has improved greatly between the 2013 and 2017 (latest) versions.

Build: The TFS build engine allows us great flexibility in how we perform our builds. While continuous integration (build on check-in) is used throughout the majority of the organization, we also leverage scheduled and manually initiated builds. The build workflow is entirely customizable and extensible to suit any need. Out-of-the-box build workflows in TFS 2013 are very NET-centric, however this has been completely overhauled in the 2015 and 2017 releases of the product. The newer versions of TFS can be used to create builds for virtually any technology stack, such as iOS builds on a Mac, Android builds, Java builds on windows\linux, etc.

.NET API: The ability to hook into TFS with custom a .NET code via API calls is critical. It allows us to automate any and all version control and build operations that we need to. Custom tooling which interfaces with TFS is a major component of our DevOps strategy/code delivery pipeline.

TFS sits at the core of our entire software delivery strategy. Implemented and used properly, it provides a centralized place to store all source code and build information for the entire organization. We always know which version of the code is deployed to which environment and are always in a position to support the production code line. Custom automation surrounding TFS (via the API) has increased the number of code deployments we are able to perform 1000-fold in the past 5 years.

Not all of the functionality, which is exposed by the command line interface (tf.exe) is available in the Visual Studio GUI.

New files/folders added to a branch are not automatically picked up as merge candidates requiring merges to be performed at a higher folder level (annoyance).

A broader view of the system-wide TFVC permissions would be beneficial. Since the security model is so granular, it makes it difficult to pull effective permissions for everything in TFVC into a single report.

I have been a user for ten years. I have been a System Administrator of TFS for eight years.

No. I have experienced no system outages in the TFS systems, which I built and configured myself.

Obviously, a poorly configured server/database instance will have stability problems. However, there is extensive public guidance provided by Microsoft on setup, upgrades, and migrations.

No. However, my user base has always been relatively small:100–200 users.

Excellent. Every ticket which I have submitted to Microsoft Premier support has been responded to very quickly. I have been put in touch with very knowledgeable engineers, and reached a resolution quickly. Post-incident follow-ups and surveys are also performed to ensure that customers have a quality experience.

No.

It really depends on your use case. For a sandbox, you can have TFS up and running with a SQL Express instance in about 1 hour. That’s not a production-ready system, though.

Performing initial (first-time) setups is fairly straightforward – getting properly spec’ed servers/database instances, following the install guide. Performing upgrade/migrations can be complex depending on how much customization that you have to the product and what has changed between versions. If you have a lot of customization, then the upgrades are going to be complicated.

Use the Microsoft recommended “seat-based” licensing model. This allows a single developer with multiple machines to consume only one client license.

We recently looked at moving to GitLab. We chose not to do this because we already have millions of lines of code hosted in TFVC and migrating all of that to Git would be a daunting task with very little value. Since both TFVC and Git are now available and since the feature set is comparable to GitLab, we opted to stay with TFS. Development teams can “choose their own version control technology” between TFVC and Git.

Hire a TFS expert or bring on a consultant. Nothing will ruin your development shop quicker than a poorly implemented version control/build system.

Microsoft premier consulting services is very expensive, but they can typically get you setup from soup-to-nuts in three to four weeks. That will include extensive guidance in how to use the tool. Your internal resources should work very closely with any consultant as a learning experience.

My primary use case is within the organization's work environment, which is mainly focused on Microsoft products and TFS as part of our corporate IT infrastructure.

TFS allows me to handle automated builds and release management quite easily. It is user-friendly with a straightforward drag and drop interface, which makes it easier for me to create builds and release pipelines without needing to program YAML files. This setup is especially beneficial to me compared to GitLab.

TFS has room for improvement as there have been global security issues that many companies, including ours, have experienced. There are glitches, such as runners getting stuck, deployments generating errors, and it's becoming outdated. 

TFS is not as fast, easy to use, or configurable as GitLab, despite moving into the cloud.

TFS has been used before my tenure, so the company has been using it for many years.

Its stability is lacking as we have encountered security leaks and glitches. Runners can get stuck, and deployments sometimes face errors.

I have never been involved with TFS support, however, as a Microsoft product, it might have limited global documentation or support options compared to GitLab.

Negative

We are in the process of switching from TFS to GitLab as TFS lacks the ease of configuration, cloud-based functionality, and security features that GitLab offers.

While I do not know the exact pricing, TFS is likely more expensive than GitLab.

I have used Google Hangouts personally, and as a company, we are considering GitLab.

TFS would benefit from having global tutorials or documentation like GitLab. The security issues should be addressed, and incorporating AI integration like Copilot could be beneficial.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten.

TFS needs to be stable.

I have been using the solution for six months. 

I rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten. 

My company has more than 50 users. 

The tool's installation is straightforward. 

I have seen ROI with the tool's use. 

TFS is expensive, and the licensing costs are yearly. I rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

The primary use for TFS is for event planning, including things like writing the user story and then assigning tasks to the developers. Another task is writing test cases, then recording test results, and sending bugs to the team members. The third thing is that we use TFS as part of our CICD pipeline.

As part of our pipeline, we use it for checking in code and it acts as a repository. This leads to the fourth thing we use it for, which is to move the code from dev to QA to production. Essentially, we establish a complete lifecycle using TFS.

We also use it in conjunction with Azure DevOps.

This product brings a lot of discipline and consistency in the way that our developers use their tools. 

The most valuable feature from my point of view is project management, which includes user stories as well as task management. I would say that these features are critical.

I would like to see better integration between TFS and third-party tools such as Jira. For example, integration with SharePoint is not very straightforward and we need to do a lot of manual work.

The user interface could be improved to make it simpler and increase usability. Making it more user-friendly would be a good thing. While it is okay in some regards, it does not compare to tools like Jira. There is some complexity because there are a lot of features, but usability can still be much better and it would be more comfortable to use.

We have been using Team Foundation Server for almost five years.

This product is stable and we have not experienced any issues with it.

The developers are completely dependent on TFS and are using it on a daily basis.

TFS is quite scalable and there are different deployment options that are available. I don't see any problems with scalability. We have between 40 and 45 people in my department who are using TFS.

The support that we received during the initial setup was the only time that we needed to contact them. Beyond that, we didn't have to ask for technical support. I wouldn't refer to our initial support as very technical because it was more about knowing how to perform certain tasks within the tool.

Prior to using TFS, we used CVS as our code repository solution. All of our requirements and bug tracking were done using manual effort. We were using Word documents and things like that. However, all of that has now been put into TFS.

What led us to switch was the ability to track all of the developers' activities. Before this, getting visibility and deliverables was a real pain point. For example, we didn't know how many stories the developers had completed, how much effort has been spent, or where we were with respect to the tasks that were completed by the teams.

I would say that the initial setup is of medium difficulty. You definitely need help from an expert, as it is not like I can just pick it up and start running it. TFS requires a little bit of expert support in setting up, and we received solid support from Microsoft.

Our deployment took place over the course of a week. It was not a week's worth of effort but we had to schedule calls for support. I would say that TFS can be set up and tested in a single day, although it may take up to a week to finalize things.

During our implementation, we requested help directly from Microsoft.

Our in-house DevOps team is responsible for maintenance.

I wouldn't say that this tool is cheap or expensive but in the middle. TFS is definitely not as expensive as some other tools like Rational Team Concert. Basically, I would say that it is affordable.

Professional Services is a separate cost from the standard licensing fees.

My advice to anybody who is considering TFS is that the suitability depends on what technology you are trying to use. For example, if you're using Microsoft technology then it is better to use TFS. If on the other hand, you are developing something outside of Microsoft, perhaps using an open-source tool, then I wouldn't be able to recommend TFS. Instead, I would choose one of the other many third-party tools that are available.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

My primary use case for TFS is to track source code changes, including branching, merging, and comparing changes. I also use it to check in and out code, track changes, and maintain a history of modifications. 

The solution has been valuable in managing source control and tracking code changes, improving code management and development efficiency. However, it has not significantly impacted project delivery timelines or cost efficiency.

The product's most valuable feature is the ability to view and track the history of changes. It allows me to see previous modifications and helps develop similar features by referencing past work.

The product access management features and connectivity need improvement. Rights management is also complex and could be simplified. 

Additional automation features would be beneficial. 

I have been using TFS since the early 2000s.

The solution is generally stable, though connectivity issues have occurred, often related to VPN usage.

I have used a similar solution sparingly.

The initial setup was straightforward: creating a new project, importing code, and setting up branches.

The setup was done in-house.

TFS is effective for code management and tracking but could benefit from improved automation and simplified user management.

Overall, I rate it a seven out of ten. 

The solution was used for software development.

It is very user-friendly.

Since the TFS was an on-prem solution, the private network accessibility was restricted. 

I have been using TFS for a year. 

It is a stable solution. I rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. Presently, twenty to thirty users are using the solution. 

The technical support team is good and supportive. 

Positive

The IT team deployed the solution. 

There is a yearly licensing fee that needs to be paid. 

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.