"Note that this repository currently contains a subset of all extensions in Productivity Power Tools for Visual Studio 2015. This subset represents extensions which we believe can serve as great real world samples of extending Visual Studio." [0]
Yep. There's the rub.
Also, as a bit of trivia, the first substantial commit was back in December [1]. The next commit was ~5 days ago.
Edit: Additionally, this is their committer policy:
"Contributions beyond the level of a bug fix are reserved for Microsoft PPT members or they will be declined." [2]
So, if you've something substantial to add, you don't get to actually contribute to the repo.
> ...regardless of whether M$ accepts the pull request or not
They've already said that they won't accept the pull request, so...
> well your fork will still have the feature...
...we're left with what will potentially be a sea of forks, with no clear "best fork". Some might say that this isn't a big deal, but it is a significant point of friction.
I'm sorry if this comes through as offensive, but I would very much like to see all your points and research about the subject of this matter condensed into a single concise blog post and submitted to HN (if you've not already done so) instead of reading it from sporadic replies throughout the comments section of the related article(s).
MSFT is currently engaged in a PR war. This offering is significantly less substantial than it would appear at first glance... the sort of first and only glance a harried tech reporter would make.
> The repository currently contains a subset of all extensions in Productivity Power Tools for Visual Studio 2015. Some extensions are not yet ready to be open-sourced, but we’re working on making all of them available over time.
Are you guys serious? While you all are bitching about the fact that less than half the extensions are currently missing, the rest of us are going to enjoy playing with and learning from the ones that are there.
I'm not bitching about anything. I'm providing a contrary view to the effusive and largely uncritical praise that much of the tech press spews whenever MSFT announces that they've open sourced this tiny thing, or ported a part of that thing to a non-Windows OS.
If you read my other comments elsewhere on this page, it becomes clear that I very much want for MSFT to have stopped bullying, subverting (and impeding the function of) standards bodies, engaging in anticompetitive lock-out, and other such shady backroom dealings. MSFT is a big company that hires rather smart people. They could use their money and collective brainpower to do really great things for the computing community.
Thing is, those of us who've been around for at least the past twenty years have seen the "Good Microsoft" act, and we remember how that act was rather short-lived. If MSFT were to do something substantially significant (such as joining the OIN [0], making a public promise to remain a member and substantially participate in its proceedings for the next twenty years, as well as a public promise to never tamper with it or its proceedings [1]) before many of us old hands start thinking that this is an actual change in corporate direction.
Haven't you seen ATT use the "ATT owned gigabit fiber service is coming soon, we're rolling it out real soon now!" feint in regions where Google Fiber is actively rolling in enough times to recognize just how cheap promises are and how insignificant the cost of breaking those promises is? :)
I genuinely hope that the corporate overlords within MSFT are very serious about becoming a good actor in the computing community. MSFT is a big company, and they could do a lot of good for both the software and hardware sides of the community.
However, this is far from my first rodeo, and this isn't the first time we've seen MSFT play the good guy. If they stick to form, the community that they fostered will be forcibly forgotten and left to wither in the sun in a -comparative- blink of an eye. Just ask the Samba guys about those Plugfests they used to attend. :)
I don't smell any PR war here. This release is important because it publicizes code that is very valuable to tool developers. Before this release you had two ways to learn practical aspects of Visual Studio extensibility:
1. Use samples that each explore an isolated feature. Available on github [0] or for a few years back on MS website.
2. Decompile VS to see what's happening behind the scenes. While .NET Reflector does very fine job, the code was convoluted to begin with and it was nearly impossible to find relevant bits.
I imagine engineers at MS are cleaning up the code of all power tools so that it's clear and easier to follow.
For example we have "Go to definition" right here [1] and I remember long evenings unsuccessfully looking for this functionality in the decompiled code.
sigh All significant wars are much larger than the individual actions in them. :) Read my other comments attached to this HN submission to get some insight into my opinion of MSFT and its actions. It's probably a little more nuanced than you'd expect.
Sorry about the contributions text - that's a little unartfully expressed. Our plan in open sourcing these extensions was both to provide some useful examples of extending Visual Studio and to be a starting point for others to create and manage new extensions based on this work.
We wanted to get these out as open source first and foremost, and we're really interested in learning how people use them. Our conservatism in accepting contributions springs out of that goal. If it's clear that there's strong interest in developing these further, we're willing to revisit that.
And just in response to the trivia, we switched the entire Visual Studio repo to git, hosted on Visual Studio Team Services, after we shipped Visual Studio 2015. We've been developing VS-PPT in that repo before moving it to GitHub, so hopefully that explains the long gap in the commit history.
We're listening! Thanks, Tim Sneath | Visual Studio Team
Oh, that wasn't directed at you, it was directed at the HN submitter and his choice of title. The history of my project repos is shot through with huge sections where nothing at all happens. That's just how these things go.
> We're listening!
Good! I hope your corporate overlords let you meaningfully act on the feedback that you receive and -more crucially- continue to act on that feedback for decades after the PR halo subsides.
I guess we'll see what happens in the upcoming half-decade or two. :)
This is great! As somebody who's worked with Extending Visual Studio before, it's always great to have some more code samples to dig through. Outside of simple scenarios, I usually have to decompile the VS dlls to figure out what's going on.
I decompiled a third party extension for VS in order to email the author and tell him how to fix it. He actually ended up open sourcing the extension on my suggestion.
In the past I've also decompiled things to see how they work.
Sure. I built a SSMS (based on Visual Studio shell, so same code) extension called SqlSmash www.sqlsmash.com. Half the features in there have made me dig into stuff like that. The latest example was trying to get a handle on the query results grid so that I can use the data in there.
22 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 51.1 ms ] threadYep. There's the rub.
Also, as a bit of trivia, the first substantial commit was back in December [1]. The next commit was ~5 days ago.
Edit: Additionally, this is their committer policy:
"Contributions beyond the level of a bug fix are reserved for Microsoft PPT members or they will be declined." [2]
So, if you've something substantial to add, you don't get to actually contribute to the repo.
[0] https://github.com/Microsoft/VS-PPT/wiki/Overview
[1] https://github.com/Microsoft/VS-PPT/commit/a243e09441d29b9f4...
[2] https://github.com/Microsoft/VS-PPT/blob/a243e09441d29b9f4c4...
They've already said that they won't accept the pull request, so...
> well your fork will still have the feature...
...we're left with what will potentially be a sea of forks, with no clear "best fork". Some might say that this isn't a big deal, but it is a significant point of friction.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/visualstudio/2016/03/17/ope...
> The repository currently contains a subset of all extensions in Productivity Power Tools for Visual Studio 2015. Some extensions are not yet ready to be open-sourced, but we’re working on making all of them available over time.
Uh, there's only one user bitching. Everybody else seems fine with it.
I'm not bitching about anything. I'm providing a contrary view to the effusive and largely uncritical praise that much of the tech press spews whenever MSFT announces that they've open sourced this tiny thing, or ported a part of that thing to a non-Windows OS.
If you read my other comments elsewhere on this page, it becomes clear that I very much want for MSFT to have stopped bullying, subverting (and impeding the function of) standards bodies, engaging in anticompetitive lock-out, and other such shady backroom dealings. MSFT is a big company that hires rather smart people. They could use their money and collective brainpower to do really great things for the computing community.
Thing is, those of us who've been around for at least the past twenty years have seen the "Good Microsoft" act, and we remember how that act was rather short-lived. If MSFT were to do something substantially significant (such as joining the OIN [0], making a public promise to remain a member and substantially participate in its proceedings for the next twenty years, as well as a public promise to never tamper with it or its proceedings [1]) before many of us old hands start thinking that this is an actual change in corporate direction.
[0] http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
[1] That is, to never, ever do anything even remotely like the shit they did at ISO.
I genuinely hope that the corporate overlords within MSFT are very serious about becoming a good actor in the computing community. MSFT is a big company, and they could do a lot of good for both the software and hardware sides of the community.
However, this is far from my first rodeo, and this isn't the first time we've seen MSFT play the good guy. If they stick to form, the community that they fostered will be forcibly forgotten and left to wither in the sun in a -comparative- blink of an eye. Just ask the Samba guys about those Plugfests they used to attend. :)
1. Use samples that each explore an isolated feature. Available on github [0] or for a few years back on MS website.
2. Decompile VS to see what's happening behind the scenes. While .NET Reflector does very fine job, the code was convoluted to begin with and it was nearly impossible to find relevant bits.
I imagine engineers at MS are cleaning up the code of all power tools so that it's clear and easier to follow.
For example we have "Go to definition" right here [1] and I remember long evenings unsuccessfully looking for this functionality in the decompiled code.
[0] https://github.com/Microsoft/VSSDK-Extensibility-Samples
[1] https://github.com/Microsoft/VS-PPT/tree/master/src/GoToDef
sigh All significant wars are much larger than the individual actions in them. :) Read my other comments attached to this HN submission to get some insight into my opinion of MSFT and its actions. It's probably a little more nuanced than you'd expect.
We wanted to get these out as open source first and foremost, and we're really interested in learning how people use them. Our conservatism in accepting contributions springs out of that goal. If it's clear that there's strong interest in developing these further, we're willing to revisit that.
And just in response to the trivia, we switched the entire Visual Studio repo to git, hosted on Visual Studio Team Services, after we shipped Visual Studio 2015. We've been developing VS-PPT in that repo before moving it to GitHub, so hopefully that explains the long gap in the commit history.
We're listening! Thanks, Tim Sneath | Visual Studio Team
Oh, that wasn't directed at you, it was directed at the HN submitter and his choice of title. The history of my project repos is shot through with huge sections where nothing at all happens. That's just how these things go.
> We're listening!
Good! I hope your corporate overlords let you meaningfully act on the feedback that you receive and -more crucially- continue to act on that feedback for decades after the PR halo subsides.
I guess we'll see what happens in the upcoming half-decade or two. :)
What's so wrong about that?
In the past I've also decompiled things to see how they work.