|
|
Use something that doesn't have a central repository (i.e. Git, Mercurial). Don't forget constant backups take up way more space then if you were using source control (since source control only stores differences instead of entire backups). Plus, you have a bunch of added value, a complete history of development, ability to branch code off, ability to create tags for a complete history (i.e. you'll always have the source for every release you make, so you can even support multiple releases), easily see differences in files between any random points in time. There's a lot of value added, plus, most solutions are free... so you really don't have an excuse not to use them...
|
|
|
|
|
AlexCode wrote: No criticism
Bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
Really, I meant it.
I'm not here and I'm no one to criticize anyone.
I like to help and I rarely judge people... Rarely...
As an IT professional I moved a lot (countries and projects) and I've been exposed to a lot of different ways of thinking. Some really good, others really bad but that's life and most of those really bad decisions had a really good explanation when they were taken.
At the end, a Bad Decision is always better than a No Decision.
Back to the subject, as the usage of an SCM is kind of an instinct to me, I'm curious why it isn't for so many people.
That's all... no criticism!
|
|
|
|
|
I would guess that there are a few people who are new to programming and don't realize they need it yet.
To iterate is human, to recurse divine.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the problem is way beyond noobs...
From what I see the most affected are professionals that actually work alone or really small teams with no experienced guidance.
SCM implementation is really a no brainer but if you never get exposed to it and don't have to curiosity chances are that you'll never reserve the time to implement it... at least not until something really bad happens...
|
|
|
|
|
My guess is that they are extremely smart people who can simply remember all code changes
|
|
|
|