4 ms·
Then people realized why that's such a bad idea
by flyingshelf 28d ago
Then people realized why that's such a bad idea
- pkal 28d agoWhy should it be? In my experience it depends on the case, and in my case it seems like an absolute technological overkill to version the site and have statichost regularly pull from some repository, as I update it perhaps once a year.
- deleted 28d ago[deleted]
- odo1242 28d agoI mean, versioning is basically free from a technical / storage / time spent standpoint, and my experience says that if you don’t do it you likely will lose your code at some point
- notRobot 27d agoTo be fair you can have versions and backups even if you don't use a versioning tool like git. Good old _v2, _v3, _v4.
- odo1242 27d agoFair, but like, why??
- embedding-shape 27d agoSimpler. Or you work/collaborate on projects with people who really shouldn't have to learn Git, even via a GUI. I'm a programmer by trade and do plenty of versioning via _v1 and so on when working on music with others, we basically send .zip files over Telegram and append some label at the end. Not gonna ask these people to learn something when basic "have many copies" does the trick sufficiently good.
- carlosjobim 27d agoIf you're making static websites, there's no code to lose.
- flyingshelf 27d agoIs that why even Google Docs has version control?
- odo1242 27d agoSecond order code loss: make a change, realize you screwed everything up, unable to revert
- xigoi 27d agoI use Git for version control, but not for deployment because I don’t want to bother making a commit every time I want to fix a typo.