4 ms·
We originally used Microsoft Source Safe, which added the comments for us. I think Source Safe made us lock a file to make changes, which was a PITA. I think we
by kevin42 3y ago
We originally used Microsoft Source Safe, which added the comments for us. I think Source Safe made us lock a file to make changes, which was a PITA. I think we made a lot of the decisions on where to break out code on a file by file basis because of that. Later, we moved to Perforce, which is good for larger binary files.
- opello 3y agoI worked with VSS for a while and remember the workflow you're describing (lock, edit, check in) and there being a culture of not bundling related changes into commits but instead tossing files in as you realized they were out of date. It's cool that this was done, thanks!
- robertlagrant 3y ago> I think Source Safe made us lock a file to make changes That's right. Good times!
- dep_b 2y agoI would still like Git to have some kind of memory of a file being edited in some kind of branch. It would make it easier to communicate work done on the same file because you can discover what is being done to it.
- teppix 2y agoI'm surely missing your point here, but isn't that exactly what git does? `git log <file>` gives you the entire history of commits that touches that particular file. edit: i suppose you mean the ability to keep track of what is being done in other unmerged branches perhaps?
- roca 2y agoI remember my wife working remotely and Source "Safe" corrupting the repo when the modem dropped while she was committing her work. Good old days.