- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Edit Admin
I've worked at a place which, even though they used source control for the database, demanded that we include a "change log" at the top of the stored proc because it was "easier to see when working on it". The same place also forbade formatting the document because it messed up the Diff.
Admin
I have to deliver source to a customer that has no access to our source control. So this is a requirement. I have to nag people to do it, it's a pain.
Edit Admin
I'm sure there are constraints around why you can't use it, but this is 100% what Git is good at. Internal remote for development, external facing remote for your customers.
Edit Admin
If the customer needs source history, they should get source history. There's no guarantee that the comments accurately reflect the source history.
As Remy said, Git is really good for this. But you don't necessarily need an externally-accessible repository. If you have to deliver history along with the source code, just deliver a Git bundle file.
Edit Admin
Is no one going to mention Remy's typo in the title? Or am I TRWTF because it was intended irony?
Admin
Git didn't exist when the project started and I'm not sure anyone wants to make the transition from Clearcase exactly for fear of losing that history.