|
|
|
|
|
|
by bbsz
866 days ago
|
|
|
That's interesting for me. I was born in 93. In 2000s all of my then web-deving with html/php was without even an awareness of something like version control. I was storing snippets of code in .txt files in case my change (often made directly on the FTP server) was to crash everything. Of course, this was just a hobbyist environment, I was a teen running some small personal communities. Then, I stopped programming for years and when returned around 5 years ago `git` was basically everywhere. Now, after working in "professional environment" with software development, I don't imagine running any project without some version control when more than 1 person is involved. What were you using for version control, how did that work between programmers committing to the same new feature? |
|
|
I started with CVS. I had been aware of sccs from an early Unix training course, so I knew how diffs worked, but I never used a VCS until I needed CVS. Later I switched to Subversion, which I think is pretty good, for my use-cases. Subversion flags a conflict if your commit against rev1.1 is submitted after another commit to the same file, but against rev1.2. You have to figure it out yourself, or grab rev1.2 and redo your changes. Git has lovely features for dealing with conflicts, much better that Subversion. But in practice, in a team of (say) three working on a feature, and communicating well, conflicts are rare, and easily resolved.
I should have been using revision control since the early days, of course; but I don't think many of us did - it required more storage, and floppy disks weren't cheap.
[Edit] Perhaps I should note that for a time, I had to work with Microsoft's Visual Sourcesafe, over Frame Delay, to a repository across the Atlantic. Those were bad times.