[house9-2]

> working on non-version-controlled code, having been expressly forbidden from using ANY VC by the CEO

Version Control is a basic requirement of professional software development in this day and age.

You could try explaining to your CEO it would be like telling a carpenter they can't use a hammer to build your new house.

Or just take the initiative and use Version Control without telling them. In my mind it isn't something you need to ask permission for.

[elliekelly]

The CEO has likely given this directive to avoid a paper trail. Any attempt at rationalizing with the CEO will be a waste of effort when this person could (and should) be focused on finding another place of employment.

[marrone12]

This is bad advice. If you accidentally leave personally identifiable healthcare information on some random stage server and that server gets hacked, that is a federal crime. If the data and application code are very intertwined (likely in a pre-SOA era), it can be very difficult to version control code completely isolated from PII.

[house9-2]

> If you accidentally leave personally identifiable healthcare information on some random stage server and that server gets hacked, that is a federal crime.

Not sure how that relates to Version Control? I personally don't put production (real) data on staging servers to begin with; always scrub your production clones or generate data for testing instances.

> If the data and application code are very intertwined (likely in a pre-SOA era), it can be very difficult to version control code completely isolated from PII.

Maybe I am naive (never had to work on DOS), but shouldn't the data be in a database/datastore/data directory that can be ignored by source control?

[wbl]

Huh? Why would the code have medical data in it?

[bontaq]

If you were to take an api response and save it for testing, but not completely remove all personal information.

Easier than you'd think, or at least I could see it happening.

[brongondwana]

Apparently (according to a carpenter friend) - if the carpenter uses a hammer on a modern build it means something has gone wrong - they're normally using nailguns or similar to put things together - hammers are to bash them back apart again or knock them into alignment if they weren't done right the first time.

[Intermernet]

Hammers can also be used in awkward to reach places that a nail gun can't get to. Also, structural timber is very rarely straight or true. Knocking things into alignment is a very common part of framing, and hammers can achieve sub-millimetre accuracy with gentle tapping.

Yes, nail guns are awesome, but hammers are very useful tools.

[NickNameNick]

I've done some work as a builders labourer. Admittedly ~18 years ago.

Nail Guns are awesome. Pneumatic, butane/battery and powder actuated all have their place and were heavily used. Always had a hammer on my belt though.

In particular, it's hard to use a nail gun to fasten a plate, hanger or bracket.

[brongondwana]

And to bring it back to the original poster - barely a day goes by that you don't need a ~hammer~ ... version control history.

[house9-2]

LOL, yes nail guns are the more efficient tool these days, however I bet these carpenters still have a hammer on their tool belt and use it at least once a day.

[eb0la]

I always thought it is more like making a building without a scaffold: when you're on the ground floor it doesn't look bad, but the more you build....