|
|
If you want to keep your brain in your head, you should also have a look at Mercurial (abbreviated as hg). Ir's a distributed VCS like Git, but is way friendlier to the user, having sane command line parameters, easy to understand documentation and the most awesome GUI, which is the only usable GUI, which is the same on any current desktop OS (TortoiseHg).
Furthermore, it doesn't need an isolated Unix environment on Windows, which makes working with Mercurial a lot more portable than using Git in your projects.
Everybody may have his or her reasons for using this or that VCS, but I strongly advise you to at least have a look at Mercurial, because you are probably going to regret it, if you started all your projects with something else and had to learn about Mercurial afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
You will be able to have local copies of your sourcecode.
I am in the same situation, and to be honest: Visual Source Safe saved my ... more than once because I was able to track source changes to see when a modification was made or to simply "throw everything away" with a simple "undo check-out".
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
Use Git for that - it is made to (also) work offline.
Source control is not for teams only and its main feature is not "backup" in the traditional sense.
Beside several other features, a version control system allows:
- encapsulating logically meningful and commented change sets (e.g. of several files) that allows to specifically roll back if needed
- adding associations with issue tracking systems (the lowest level of intergation is to mention the fixed issues in the change set comment)
- producing a worklog and/or create some kind of release notes
- creating concurrently existing variants of the sources (AKA branching)
- ...
Ask yourself if you can achieve this with your backup "solution" - without re-inventing the wheel, i.e. without trying to mimic the version control systems featurs.
Cheers
Andi
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
