tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5319903324456687660.post1051082791577910940..comments2023-11-02T10:00:12.599-05:00Comments on The Code Connection: Branching in TFS 2010: Part IV (Internal Pattern)Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05647043768103600647noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5319903324456687660.post-80948764774517789992022-09-25T07:23:10.408-05:002022-09-25T07:23:10.408-05:00Thank yoou for being youThank yoou for being youOregon Tile Installationhttps://www.tile-professionals.com/us/oregon-tile-installation/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5319903324456687660.post-42876460325655940972011-12-21T00:06:10.387-06:002011-12-21T00:06:10.387-06:00I'm not completely sure without looking at it,...I'm not completely sure without looking at it, but the NETWORK SERVICE user could be the one used for automated builds in Team Build. Check to see if the DLL's are checked out by anyone or not, and if so try to trace back when and why through the timestamps. I don't think the release being marked read-only would affect this, since that's an entirely separate branch.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05647043768103600647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5319903324456687660.post-36774197053694160342011-12-20T10:17:07.708-06:002011-12-20T10:17:07.708-06:00Great post, but I have a question about the Intern...Great post, but I have a question about the Internal pattern. We have an implementation of your pattern for a common library, and we're currently on version 1.4.<br /><br />Now, we're adding features to the library, so that implies a major release (so, version 2.0... the first major release since 1.0). We've developed the feature in the feature branch, and now we're trying to merge from the Feature Branch to the DEV branch (per the pattern). <br /><br />But TFS is giving a warning, saying that the dlls in the DEV BRANCH\Deployment folder are locked by NT AUTHORITY\NETWORK SERVICE.<br /><br />Any ideas how to perform the merge for a second major release? Could this possibly be related to the fact that the releases were marked as read-only?Bjornnoreply@blogger.com