4 ms·

Branches and being able to revisit older code are very important, regardless of the number of people working on the code base.

• mattmanser 11y ago
  Branches aren't important. If you ever used pre-git, they were a massive PITA that small teams wouldn't bother with. And being able to visit old code? I can't remember a single instance in my career where that was important. I can imagine scenarios where it might be, but they've never happened in real life. The other thing I realised is that most source control systems are useless if you change a file's name, you can get to the old file, but you simply can't be bothered. So it's actually easy to effectively 'lose' old code through refactors. Source control is great for looking up the 'why' of what you did 6 months later and for backups.
  • cturner 11y ago
    And for identifying who broke the build :)
    • marcosdumay 11y ago
      On a single developer project? No need for git, it was me. The stupid guy that wrote this ugly code was me too. I still use a VCS, if only for synchronizing code between computers, and for actually erasing dead code without regrets.
      • mattmanser 11y ago
        Oh, yeah, multiple computer synch is the other reason I use too, and auto-builds.
  • Shorel 11y ago
    The fact the CVS or SVN were not capable tools to use branches doesn't mean anything about modern use of branches in Git or Hg. Otherwise we would be judging all programming languages by the use cases and the pitfalls of COBOL.