[Tfug] Version Control

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Bexley Hall <bexley401 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
>>> I.e., the folks *using* them are mostly interested in writing
>>> and tracking changes to *source code* and little else.
>>
>>
>> Well, which of these use-cases are you evaluating for?  git is able,
>
>
> Which does a *business* decide is important?  "Let's track
> the changes in the mechanical drawings for the PC's that we
> manufacture and not worry about the changes in the BIOS
> that runs in them"?  "Lets track the changes in the BIOS
> and not worry about the changes in the schematics for the
> hardware it runs on"?  etc.
>
> If you're just writing code, then all you care about is the code.
> If you're just building metal boxes, then all you care about are
> the metal boxes.
>
> OTOH, if you are "delivering systems" then you care about every
> aspect of that system!

Right, so you use the tools best for the problem at hand.  You don't
make everyone use one set of tools.  You make _everyone_ use the same
version of Word (or OO/LO) and the track changes feature there, and
deal with those headaches for specs and other formatted documents (and
backups!), you use some VCS for code and other tracking tools for your
design files, and so forth.

>
>> but not the best choice for "what did my resume file look like 6
>> months ago?" but it does it fine (it's just not efficient) or "let me
>> back up my database" (again, doable but with drawbacks, see
>> stackoverflow).  If you've got a large codebase (or set of codebases)
>> and docs and related things, and you want one VC for everything, you
>> have to decide what gets priority.  Or pick a VC for "code" and a VC
>> (or set of backup strategies) for other data.  Collaborative document
>> editing has its own set of headaches.
>
>
> *Any* sharing has headaches.  A "document" is no different than
> a piece of code in that regard (OK, a piece of code probably
> has a far more extensive governing specification and formally
> defined test suite -- whereas a document could have a three line
> specification and *no* test suite:  "Looks good to me!  Send it
> to the printer...")

Oh my no.  Sharing blobs sucks way more than text-backed files, hence
all of those headaches about different versions of Word for .doc files
and every-day nightmares like
ProductSpec_0.99_Julie_Bob_George_Jill_BobAgain_Markv2.docx and so
forth as people pass around files for editing / review / comments.
Which is why there's products and tools (and free options) for trying
to make that problem suck less.

--
Tom