5 ms·

My personal experience would disagree, and I feel that is throwing caution to the wind. As any software person knows, you really can't tell what's going to h

My personal experience would disagree, and I feel that is throwing caution to the wind. As any software person knows, you really can't tell what's going to happen to the code/scripts you put out, not committing it to source control is a dangerous game to play. If you have a simple shell script sitting on a server doing some basic task, why would you not have it under source control where it can be viewed by future teams and seeing what changes have been made to it over time? Seemingly simple problems can be caused by minor changes which are very visible if its under source control. Just because its simple doesn't make it any less important. Complexity is not a good measure of its importance. Especially when you start trying to implement IAC in legacy areas...

gitgud 8y ago
I completely agree, source control is not used to track complexity. It's to track changes and the reasons for those changes... however small they may be.
occams_chainsaw 8y ago
At that point, you care enough to put it under source control, and it shouldn't be a shell script. That's the entire point of the comment you replied to
- hueving 8y ago
  And that's a stupid heuristic. Simple bash scripts can be critical to a processing pipeline while still being the best tool for the job.
- JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
  It's that arbitrary distinction that I am responding to. I don't agree that you should reserve source control for the complex. A shell script can be the appropriate tool for many important tasks.
  - sverhagen 8y ago
    I agree that simpler scripts deserve to be in source control too. I read it to mean what I also would say, myself: if it's anything but the most trivial of scripts (so, rather _programs_), they shouldn't be in BASH. Some people in this discussion are clearly very well versed in BASH. Great. For average developers, though, it's hard to build (good) programs in BASH, and the rabbit hole swallows them. Every time.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

gitgud 8y ago

I completely agree, source control is not used to track complexity. It's to track changes and the reasons for those changes... however small they may be.

occams_chainsaw 8y ago

At that point, you care enough to put it under source control, and it shouldn't be a shell script. That's the entire point of the comment you replied to

hueving 8y ago
And that's a stupid heuristic. Simple bash scripts can be critical to a processing pipeline while still being the best tool for the job.
JauntyHatAngle 8y ago
It's that arbitrary distinction that I am responding to. I don't agree that you should reserve source control for the complex. A shell script can be the appropriate tool for many important tasks.
- sverhagen 8y ago
  I agree that simpler scripts deserve to be in source control too. I read it to mean what I also would say, myself: if it's anything but the most trivial of scripts (so, rather _programs_), they shouldn't be in BASH. Some people in this discussion are clearly very well versed in BASH. Great. For average developers, though, it's hard to build (good) programs in BASH, and the rabbit hole swallows them. Every time.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]