XP is just a number | |
PerlMonks |
Re^3: Revisioning systems and the lackofby Velaki (Chaplain) |
on Oct 06, 2006 at 11:50 UTC ( [id://576648]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Same here. I came onboard a recent project, and the code was splattered everywhere. Each person had their own way of making a backup, and that's when they took the time to do so. I saw files with .bak, .bak.bak, and every perversion of a date format used to create filenames such as my\ foo.bar.baz(qux).051006.bak.~~#123#. I asked around. I figured maybe there was some kind of revision control system there. There was. RCS itself, the reverse-delta cousin of SCCS from the before time. However, it was out of date, and we really needed concurrant access and update to the files. After much searching for a formal procedure regarding it, I decided to implement SVN myself. SVN is easy to use, and easy to host out of my own private account. A few extra scripts and a couple of cron jobs, and I had automated backups of the repository being archived away in a safe place. I even set up project member notification upon committing changes to the repository. It worked like a charm. No more guessing. No more difficult merges via copy/paste, or hacked diffs. And since it's not raw RCS, there were no locking issues preventing us from working on the source code. When it came to deploying the new software, I simply checked it out of the repository as the production user, and poof! Easy updates. And even easier rollbacks, if needed. Deployment became simple and efficient. The only advice I can give you is to always use a revision control system, regardless of the system. I have directly observed an improvement in the development process, project maintainability, and deployment consistency. You will, too. Contemplative,
"Perl. There is no substitute."
In Section
Meditations
|
|