Related
I'm currently working on a project that's been going on for several years straight. The development-team is small (less than 5 programmers), and source-control is virtually non-existent, and the deployment-process as is is just based on manually moving files from one server to another. The project is in classic ASP, so building isn't an issue, as both deployment and testing is just about getting the files to where they need to be and directing the browser at the correct location. Currently all development is done on a network-drive which is also the test-server. The test-server is only available when inside the the local network (can be accessed trough vpn), and is available on the address 'site.test' in the browser (requires editing to the hosts-file on all the clients, but since there are so few of us that hasn't proven to be any problem at all). All development is done in visual studio. Whenever a file is change the developer that changed the file is required to write the file he changed into a word-document and include a small description as of what was changed and why. Then, whenever there's supposed to be a version-bump (deployment), our lead-developer goes trough the word-document and copies every file (file by file) that has changed over to the production-server. Now, I don't think I need to tell you that this method is very error prone (a developer might for instance forget to add that he changed some dependency, and that might cause problems when deployed), and there's a lot of work involved with deploying.
And here comes the main question. I've been asked by the lead developer to use some time and see if I can come up with a simple solution that can simplify and automate the "version-control" and the deployment. Now, the important thing is that it's as easy as posible to use for the developers. Two of the existing developers have worked with computers for a long time, and are pretty stuck up in their routines, so for instance changing it into something like git bash wouldn't work at all. Don't get me wrong, I love git, but the first time one of them got a merge-conflict they wouldn't know what to do at all. Also, it would be ideal to change to a more distributed development-process where the developers wouldn't need to be logged into vpn (or need internet at all) to develop, and the changes they made offline could be synced up when they were done with them. Now, I've looked at Teem Development Server from Microsoft because of it's strong integration with Visual Studio. As far as I've tested it seems possible to make Visual Studio prompt the user if they want to check in changes whenever the user closes Visual Studio. Now, using TFS for source-control would probably eliminate most of the problems with the development, but how about deployment? Not to mention versioning? As far as I've understood (I've only looked briefly at TFS), TFS has a running number for every check-in, but is it possible to tell TFS that this check-in should be version 2.0.1 of the system (for example), and then have it deploy it to the web-server? And another problem, the whole solution consists of about 10 directories with hundreds of files in, though the system itself (without images and such) is only 5 directories, and only these 5 should be deployed to the server, is this possible to automate?
I know there's a lot of questions here, but what is most important is that I want to automate the development process (not the coding, but the managing of the code), and the deployment process, and I want to make it as simple as possible to use. I don't care if the setup is a bit of work, cause I got enough time at hand to setup whatever system that fits our needs, but the other devs should not have to do a lot of setup. If all of the machines that should use the system needs to be setup once, that's no problem at all, cause I can do that, but there shouldn't bee any need to do config and setups as we go.
Now, do any of you have any suggestions to what systems to use/how to use them, in order to simplify the described processes above? I've worked with several types of scm-systems before (GIT, HG and SubVersion), but I don't have any experience with build-systems at all (if that is needed). Articles, and discussion on how to efficiently setup systems like this would be greatly appreciated. In advance, thanks.
This is pretty subjective territory, but I think you need to get some easy wins first. The developers who are "stuck up in there ways" are the main roadblock here. They are going to see change as disruptive and not worth it. You need to slowly and carefully go for the easy wins.
First, TFS is probably not going to be a good choice. It's expensive, heavy, and the source control in TFS is pretty lousy. Go for Subversion: it's easy to setup and easy to use, and it's free. Get that in place first, and get the devs using it. Much easier said than done.
Later (possibly much later), once the devs are using it and couldn't imagine life without a VCS, then you could switch to Hg or Git if you need first class branching and all those other nice features.
Once you have Subversion in place, you can use something like JetBrains TeamCity or Jenkins, both of which are free and easy to use. However, I'm just assuming you don't have a lot of tests and build scripts that the CI server is really going to be running, so it's far more important that you get VCS first. In all things: keep it as simple as possible. Baby steps. Get some wins, build trust, repeat.
I can't even begin to think where to begin with this! Intending no offense directed at you, apart from the mention of git and HG, this post could have been written 10 years ago.
1) Source control - How can a team of developers possibly work effectively without some form of source control? Hell, even if it's Visual Source Safe (* shudder *) at least it would be something. You have to insist that the team implement source control. You know what's available so I won't get into preaching about that. (However, Subversion with TortoiseSVN has worked quite well for me.)
2)
"write the file he changed into a
word-document and include a small
description as of what was changed and
why"
You have got to be kidding... What happens if two developers change the same file? Does the lead then have to manually merge two changes that s/he extracts from the word doc? Please see #1 and explain to them how commit comments work.
Since your don't really need to "build" (i.e. compiled, etc.) anything, you should be able to solve most of your problems with some simple tools. First and foremost you need to use a source control solution. Yes, the developers would have to learn how to use another tool (EEEK!). You could do the initial leg work of getting the code into the repository. If you have file access to the other developers machines, you could even copy a checked-out working copy to their machines so they wouldn't have to do the checkout themselves (not really that hard). You could then use all the creamy goodness of version control to create version branches when each deployment needs to be done. You could write simple scripts using the command line SVN tools to check out said branches and automatically copy the files to the target server(s). Using a tool like BeyondCompare, the copy process could be restricted to only the files that are different (plus BC can handle an FTP target if that is an issue). By enforcing commit comments on the SVN repo, you'll guarantee that the developers provide comments, and for each set of changes between releases you could very easily generate a list of all those comments using the CSM log retrieval features.
I've got a (dirty) production installation of Simple Machines Forum (SMF 1.1.13). It was a clean install, once... about five years, twenty updates, and 40 mods ago. Not to mention the custom code that was patched directly into the code base. This started as a for-fun side project, and didn't have any code management practices at the get-go.
Now SMF 2 is (getting closer to) going live, and I want to upgrade. But without leaving the custom features behind.
Keep reading, this is a general software management question, not an SMF support question...
I'm trying to figure out the best way to port the custom features into the new code branch.
In some cases, the custom 1.1.x functionality will already exist in 2.0. Yay, no work for me!
In some cases, there will be mod packages versioned for 2.0, and I can just install them directly on a clean SMF 2 build. Yay, minimal work for me!
In some cases, the code port will be fairly straightforward between the two versions (e.g. a few small changes in queries or global variable construction). (I've ported a few features/mods back from 2.0 to 1.1.x, so I'm starting to get familiar with it.)
In some cases, I'm just going to have to redevelop the features mostly from scratch.
Those last two options are gonna be hard to manage.
Any suggestions on how to port a large number of changes from one branch to another?
When it's not my own in-house code, that is. Here's my initial plan:
Diff between a clean version of 1.1.x and my "dirty" production code
Map each line diff to a feature ("That code update is the custom tagging feature, gonna have to port it line by line, and that one over there is the gallery, I can probably install an updated mod.") This would be SOMUCHEASIER if there were a diff tool that generated a consolidated report, instead of having to go through scores of files one at a time. Google and SO searches didn't find a tool like that-- Is there one?
Install a clean 2.0 branch
Install the available updated mods
Roll up my sleeves and go through my diffs feature by feature (this? is why I need the consolidated diff report. It would be hell to do page by page.) and build them back in.
Any better ideas? (Pointers to release management info are welcome, though of course with the caveat that it's not actually my code so I have limited control.)
Otherwise? I fear my options are ditch the custom features (not really feasible) or stay on the old branch. Both suck. Help!
tl;dr: Point me to a diff tool that will do consolidated file-by-file diff reports for entire directories. And/or help me figure out an easier way to migrate my custom code.
Your plan is generally the most practical approach, although I would say that you're heading in the wrong direction by looking for code-level differences. With no version control over the project lifetime and with no concise record of applied changes, in examining differences at the code level you are looking for a level of detail that may not give you the information you need to apply the same changes to a new implementation.
Move away from thinking of code-level changes and consider application-level feature and behavioural changes. What features have your changes introduced? In what ways does your application now behave differently due to your changes?
You say that there have been many unversioned changes over a long period - you will fail to find all the changes no matter what tools you have at your disposal and you will still need to consider the feature and behavioural changes that exist to fully represent the same features and behaviours in any upgraded implementation.
You know your application well, you use it and you do appreciate the feature changes that you have introduced even if you may not realise this.
Install a vanilla 2.0 release
Apply all appropriate mods
Apply relevant styling
Use the new system, note the differences in behaviour and develop from this a set of required features
Your feature set does not need to be complete - don't stall at the stage of trying to figure out all required changes, this will take too long.
Apply features gathered from most recent feedback (ideally through revertable mods)
Note the differences in behaviour at develop from this a set of required features
Repeat
I'm developing a web app.
If I include a jQuery plugin (or the jQuery file itself), this has to be put under my static directory, which is under SCM, to be served correctly.
Should I gitignore it, or add it, even if I don't plan on modifying anything from it?
And what about binary files (graphic resources) that might come with it?
Thanks in advance for any advice!
My view is that everything you need for your application to run correctly needs to be managed. This includes third-party code.
If you don't put it under SCM, how is it going to get deployed correctly on your production systems? If you have other ways of ensuring that, that's fine, but otherwise you run the risk that successful deployment is a matter of people remembering to do all the right things, rather than some automated low-risk "push the button" procedure.
If you don't manage it under SCM or something similar, how do you ensure that the versions you develop against and test against are the same? And that they're the same as production? Debugging an issue caused by a version difference you don't notice can be horrible.
I generally add external resources to my project directly. Doing so facilitates deployment and ensures that if someone changes the version of this file in your project, you have a clear audit history of what happened in case it causes issues in the code that you've written. Developers should know not to modify these external resources.
You could use something like git submodules, I suppose, but I haven't felt that this is worth the hassle in the past.
Binary files from external sources can be checked in to the project as well, although if they're extremely large you may want to consider a different approach.
There aren't a lot of reasons not to put external resources like jQuery into your repo:
If you pull it down from jQuery every time you check out or deploy, you have less control over which version you're using. This holds true for most third-party libraries; you probably don't want to upgrade your libraries without testing with your code to see if it breaks something.
You'll always have a complete copy of your site when you check out your repository and you won't need to go seeking resources that may have become unavailable.
For small (in terms of filesize) things like jQuery and images, I'd just add them unless you're really, really concerned about space.
It depends.
These arguments relate to having a copy of the library on your system and not pulling it from it's original location.
Arguments in favour:
It will ensure that everything needed for your project can be found in one place when someone else joins your development team. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to scramble around looking for the right versions of libraries in order to be able to get something working.
If you make any modifications to the library you can make these changes to the source controlled version so when a new version comes out you use the source control's merging tools to ensure your edits don't go missing.
Arguments against:
It could mean everyone has a copy of the library locally - unless you map the 3rd party tools to a central server.
Deploying could be problematical - again unless you map the 3rd party tools to a central server and don't include them in the deploy script.
Almost any IDE creates lots of files that have nothing to do with the application being developed, they are generated and mantained by the IDE so he knows how to build the application, where the version control repository is and so on.
Should those files be kept under version control along with the files that really have something to do with the aplication (source code, application's configuration files, ...)?
The things is: on some IDEs if you create a new project and then import it into the version-control repository using the version-control client/commands embedded in the IDE, then all those files are sent to the respitory. And I'm not sure that's right: what is two different developers working on the same project want to use two different IDEs?
I want to keep this question agnostic avoiding references to any particular IDE, programming language or version control system. So this question is not exactly the same as these:
SVN and binaries - but this talks about binaries and SVN
Do you keep your build tools in version control? - but this talks about build tools (e.g. putting the jdk under version control)
What project files shouldn’t be checked into SVN - but this talks about SVN and dll's
Do you keep your project files under version control? - very similar (haven't found it before), thanks VonC
Rules of thumb:
Include everything which has an influence on the build result (compiler options, file encodings, ASCII/binary settings, etc.)
Include everything to make it possible to open the project from a clean checkout and being able to compile/run/test/debug/deploy it without any further manual intervention
Don't include files which contain absolute paths
Avoid including personal preferences (tab size, colors, window positions)
Follow the rules in this order.
[Update] There is always the question what should happen with generated code. As a rule of thumb, I always put those under version control. As always, take this rule with a grain of salt.
My reasons:
Versioning generated code seems like a waste of time. It's generated right? I can get it back at a push of a button!
Really?
If you had to bite the bullet and generate the exact same version of some previous release without fail, how much effort would it be? When generating code, you not only have to get all the input files right, you also have to turn back time for the code generator itself. Can you do that? Always? As easy as it would be to check out a certain version of the generated code if you had put it under version control?
And even if you could, could you ever be sure that didn't miss something?
So on one hand, putting generated code under version control make sense since it makes it dead easy to do what VCS are meant for: Go back in time.
Also it makes it easy to see the differences. Code generators are buggy, too. If I fix a bug and have 150'000 files generated, it helps a lot when I can compare them to the previous version to see that a) the bug is gone and b) nothing else changed unexpectedly. It's the unexpected part which you should worry about. If you don't, let me know and I'll make sure you never work for my company ever :-)
The major pain point of code generators is stability. It doesn't do when your code generator just spits out a random mess of bytes every time you run (well, unless you don't care about quality). Code generators need to be stable and deterministic. You run them twice with the same input and the output must be identical down to least significant bit.
So if you can't check in generated code because every run of the generator creates differences that aren't there, then your code generator has a bug. Fix it. Sort the code when you have to. Use hash maps that preserve order. Do everything necessary to make the output non-random. Just like you do everywhere else in your code.
Generated code that I might not put under version control would be documentation. Documentation is somewhat of a soft target. It doesn't matter as much when I regenerate the wrong version of the docs (say, it has a few typos more or less). But for releases, I might do that anyway so I can see the differences between releases. Might be useful, for example, to make sure the release notes are complete.
I also don't check in JAR files. As I do have full control over the whole build and full confidence that I can get back any version of the sources in a minute plus I know that I have everything necessary to build it without any further manual intervention, why would I need the executables for? Again, it might make sense to put them into a special release repo but then, better keep a copy of the last three years on your company's web server to download. Think: Comparing binaries is hard and doesn't tell you much.
I think it's best to put anything under version control that helps developers to get started quickly, ignoring anything that may be auto-generated by an IDE or build tools (e.g. Maven's eclipse plugin generates .project and .classpath - no need to check these in). Especially avoid files that change often, that contain nothing but user preferences, or that conflict between IDEs (e.g. another IDE that uses .project just like eclipse does).
For eclipse users, I find it especially handy to add code style (.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs - auto formatting on save turned on) to get consistently formatted code.
Everything that can be automatically generated from the source+configuration files should not be under the version control! It only causes problems and limitations (like the one you stated - using 2 different project files by different programmers).
Its true not only for IDE "junk files" but also for intermediate files (like .pyc in python, .o in c etc).
This is where build automation and build files come in.
For example, you can still build the project (the two developers will need the same build software obviously) but they then could in turn use two different IDE's.
As for the 'junk' that gets generated, I tend to ignore most if it. I know this is meant to be language agnostic but consider Visual Studio. It generates user files (user settings etc..) this should not be under source control.
On the other hand, project files (used by the build process) most certainly should. I should add that if you are on a team and have all agreed on an IDE, then checking in IDE specific files is fine providing they are global and not user specific and/or not needed.
Those other questions do a good job of explaining what should and shouldn't be checked into source control so I wont repeat them.
In my opinion it depends on the project and environment. In a company environment where everybody is using the same IDE it can make sense to add the IDE files to the repository. While this depends a bit on the IDE, as some include absolute paths to things.
For a project which is developed in different environments it doesn't make sense and will be pain in the long run as the project files aren't maintained by all developers and make it harder to find "relevant" things.
Anything that would be devastating if it were lost, should be under version control.
In my opinion, anything needed to build the project (code, make files, media, databases with required program info, etc) should be in repositories. I realise that especially for media/database files this is contriversial, but to me if you can't branch and then hit build the source control's not doing it's job. This goes double for distributed systems with cheap branch creation/merging.
Anything else? Store it somewhere different. Developers should choose their own working environment as much as possible.
From what I have been looking at with version control, it seems that most things should go into it - e.g. source code and so on. However, the problem that many VCS's run into is when trying to handle large files, typically binaries, and at times things like audio and graphic files. Therefore, my personal way to do it is to put the source code under version control, along with general small sized graphics, and leave any binaries to other systems of management. If it is a binary that I created myself using the build system of the IDE, then that can definitily be ignored, because it is going to be regenerated every build. For dependancy libraries, well this is where dependancy package managers come in.
As for IDE generated files (I am assuming these are ones that aren't generated during the build process, such as the solution files for Visual Studio) - well, I think it would depend on whether or not you are working alone. If you are working alone, then go ahead and add them - they will allow you to revert settings in the solution or whatever you make. Same goes for other non-solution like files as well. However, if you are collaborating, then my recomendation is no - most IDE generated files tend to be, well, user specific - aka they work on your machine, but not neccesarily on others. Hence, you may be better of not including IDE generated files in that case.
tl;dr you should put most things that relate to your program into version control, excluding dependencies (things like libraries, graphics and audio should be handled by some other dependancy management system). As for things directly generated by the IDE - well, it would depend on if you are working alone or with other people.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I read all over the Internet (various sites and blogs) about version control. How great it is and how all developers NEED to use it because it is very useful.
Here is the question: do I really need this? I'm a front-end developer (usually just HTML/CSS/JavaScript) and I NEVER had a problem like "Wow, my files from yesterday!".
I've tried to use it, installed Subversion and TortoiseSVN, I understand the concept behind version control but... I can't use it (weird for me).
OK, so... Is that bad? I usually work alone (freelancer) and I had no client that asked me to use Subversion (but it never is too late for this, right?). So, should I start and struggle to learn to use Subversion (or something similar?) Or it's just a waste of time?
Related question: Good excuses NOT to use version control.
Here's a scenario that may illustrate the usefulness of source control even if you work alone.
Your client asks you to implement an ambitious modification to the website. It'll take you a couple of weeks, and involve edits to many pages. You get to work.
You're 50% done with this task when the client calls and tells you to drop what you're doing to make an urgent but more minor change to the site. You're not done with the larger task, so it's not ready to go live, and the client can't wait for the smaller change. But he also wants the minor change to be merged into your work for the larger change.
Maybe you are working on the large task in a separate folder containing a copy of the website. Now you have to figure out how to do the minor change in a way that can be deployed quickly. You work furiously and get it done. The client calls back with further refinement requests. You do this too and deploy it. All is well.
Now you have to merge it into the work in progress for the major change. What did you change for the urgent work? You were working too fast to keep notes. And you can't just diff the two directories easily now that both have changes relative to the baseline you started from.
The above scenario shows that source control can be a great tool, even if you work solo.
You can use branches to work on longer-term tasks and then merge the branch back into the main line when it's done.
You can compare whole sets of files to other branches or to past revisions to see what's different.
You can track work over time (which is great for reporting and invoicing by the way).
You can recover any revision of any file based on date or on a milestone that you defined.
For solo work, Subversion or Git is recommended. Anyone is free to prefer one or the other, but either is clearly better than not using any version control. Good books are "Pragmatic Version Control using Subversion, 2nd Edition" by Mike Mason or "Pragmatic Version Control Using Git" by Travis Swicegood.
There are lots of benefits, yes you need it.
What tools/techniques can benefit a solo developer?
Best Version control for lone developer
You don't need version control any more than a trapese artist needs a safety net. It's like backing up your hard drive—most of the time it seems redundant as nothing happens but it will be needed eventually. There's no maybes here. It will happen. And you can never predict when and the past is a poor indicator as to when it will happen. It may happen only once ever in the future but even if you know it'll happen once you won't know how bad it will be.
Yes!
Do it. It won't hurt you..
I usually switch from Laptop to PC and back and it's absolutely great to have your code somewhere in a central repository.
Sometimes it's great to go just revert to the latest revision because you screwed up something that would be too difficult to fix..
The biggest advantage that is missing is being able to re-produce the source code that generated an old build.
At build time, you tag the source control with 'Build 4.26'. The next day you start coding Build 4.27. Three months later, when a client says, "I'm using Build 4.26, and there's a bug in the Frickershaw feature. I can't upgrade to any other build because of some changes to file formats you made in build 4.27. Is there anything you can do for me? I'm willing to pay."
Then, you can checkout a branch of the 4.26 source code... fix the Frickershaw feature, and then re-build the package for the user in about an hour or two. Then you can switch back to version 4.39, and keep working.
In the same vein, you can track down the exact point at which a bug was added. Test versions 4.25 for the bug, then 4.20, then 4.10 and eventually find the bug was introduced in version 4.12. Then you look for all changes made between 'Build 4.11' and 'Build 4.12', and then focus on the Frickershaw feature. You can quickly find the source code for the bug without ever debugging it.
Branching doesn't seem useful to you? Have you never wanted to just try something out to see if it would work? I do a lot of plain old html/css stuff too, and I find that invaluable. There is literally no danger in branching to test something, seeing if it works, and deciding "meh" and then just rolling back.
I've never needed to get to a backup (knock on wood), but I find just the rolling back functionality invaluable.
A few perks as a freelancer:
Know definitively what you changed in every single file and when (as long as you check in often)
Rollback to any version in your past. Surprising how often this is valuable.
Track a set of changes as a 'release'. This way you know what each client is currently using and what's in development.
Backup
The ability to easily share a project if you suddenly aren't solo
Try a DVCS like Git or Bazaar. They are incredibly easy to set up, easy to use, and offer all the important features of Subversion, CVS, etc.
The key is that you can revert back to a working version when you break something, which is often much faster than undoing the change manually.
I wouldn't hire a contractor without them integrating into our processes. They would have to access code via our SVN, and would be unlikely to get paid without meeting unit testing and code review requirements.
If contracting I'd make sure to have solid experience of both VSS (check-in/out) and CVS (merge & conflict) models.
Working on your own you have a great opportunity to play and learn with the latest - I'd be trying out Git.
As a lone developer you can think of source control as an unlimited undo - one that works across sessions and reboots.
A minor advantage of source control for me is that I work on multiple development computers. It is easy to move my work around between machines.
The greatest advantage in my opinion has already been listed. It allows me to sleep at night knowing that if we have to roll-back a change it will be fairly easy.
I think the main advantage in moving from a "keep-all-versions file system" to a source code control system lies in the fact that the sccs adds structure to all those versions you kept of all those files, and provides you with records of "what was the consistent state of the whole file system at point X".
In other words, "Which version of file A goes with which versions of B, C, D, ...".
And an afterthought (¡!): the special act of committing or checking in makes you think about "what is this?", and the resulting log message can, hopefully, serve as memory...
The literal answer to this question is, No, you do not NEED version control.
You do, however, WANT version control, even if you don't know it.
That said, many SCM tools can be mysterious or downright unpleasant to use until you break through the Grok Barrier, so let's revise that a bit:
"You do, however, want EASY-TO-USE version control." And it's out there...download a bunch of recommended visual clients and give them a whirl, then try whichever maps best to the way you think.
Which leads to the question you meant to ask:
Why do I want to use version control?"
Answer: Version control allows you to be FEARLESS!
Yes you need it.
At the very least, for a single developer shop, you need to move code into a ProjectName-Date-Time directory several times a day.
That is, write a script that will automatically back up your working directory at lunch and at quitting time, without overwriting other back ups.
This can grow pretty fast, so eventually you'll want to save only the differences between files, which is what a VC application does.
Since you usually work alone, I would say that it is a good idea to use version control. One of the main benefits I have found in using version control (Subversion in my case), is that when working alone it gives me more confidence in trying a new approach to the problem. You can always branch to a new method or framework of solving the problem and see if you like it better. If it turns out that this branch doesn't work, you can just abandon it and go back to the old method. This also makes it easier to try out the different solutions side by side.
So, if you have ever seen a different approach to solving a problem and you wanted to try it out, I would definitely use version control as a tool to make this easier.
If you are working on your own, and are performing backups on a regular basis, VC may not be needed (unless you count your backups as version history). As soon as you start working with another developer, you should get version control in place so that you don't start over-writing each other's work.
Even if you don't need it right now, it is something you will need whenever you work in a team.
Having a history of changes to your html/css/javascript can be a godsend. Being able to compare your front-end to the code a month, or several months ago can really go a long way in figuring out why suddenly the template is all askew.
Plus if you ever want/need to get help on your project(s), you'll have an easy system to distribute, track, and deploy updated content.
Definitely do it, you'll thank yourself once you get used to it.
Checkout (one time)
Update (beginning of day)
Commit (end of task/change after testing)
That's all there is to it. Don't commit EVERY single modification that you're refreshing in the browser, just the one's you want to go live.
Think if it like a backup. It is a little irritating until the day you need it. Then the amount of work you lose is directly proportional to the frequency of your backups.
Another benifit is being able to look at old ways you did things that may have become obsolete in a certain spot but could be usefull in another. Just cut and paste the old code that you got when doing a compare.
That is unless you like reinventing the wheel you already reinvented...
When things can go wrong they will.
It is very nice to have the ability to reference code you may have deleted a month ago, or to recover the entire project after a hardware failure or upgrade.
There may also be a point in the future when the project is worked on by more than you. The ability to prevent (or control) branching and versioning is a must in an environment like that.
Must must must must must must. You must use version control.
This is of the deepest importance.
If you don't understand why now, you will one day.
When your client phones up in a panic because something is broken on the live site and it's a regression, you'll be glad you can just open TortoiseSVN and see what it was you did last Tuesday that caused the breakage.
It's really odd. Ever since I started using version control, I've very occasionally had the need to look up old copies of my code and use them. I never needed to do this before...probably because the idea of doing didn't really stick. It's easy not to notice those times when you could have found version control helpful.
Search within an entire codebase. It's a killer feature, mainly because the search gets actioned on another machine so you can get on with your work undisturbed.
Which incidentally, is the reason why we didn't change to SourceGear Vault. It can't do this. We're still looking for a SourceSafe-compatible replacement for... well, SourceSafe. Despite what everyone says, it hasn't let us down yet*
* this may just be a matter of time.
I think you've made the right decision to use some kind of version control. For simplicity, I'd go with SVN (ignore CVS as SVN is basically a "better" CVS)
SVN can work with "local" repositories right on the filesystem and on lots of platform so you don't have to bite off too much in infrastructure (servers, networks, etc)
Great resource for SVN: http://svnbook.red-bean.com
I don't know much about GIT, but it being open source and gain lots of mindshare probably has alot of similar advantages!
Borrowing a quote from somewhere: You might not need it now, but when you do, you'll be glad you did.
Happy versioning!
Although old and crude, we have found Microsoft Visual SourceSafe to work. It works great for keeping version history. If you are not to worried about branching, which being the solo developer you may not, it might just fit the bill.
As far as checking in, finding a good checkpoint can be a challenge, but checking in on every save will only make versioning hard to track.
"Do I really need version control?"
Yes. Unless you write perfect code that never needs to get changed.
An example:
I had a requirement. I built up a webpage, spent a day or so on the page, it's Section 508 compatibility (this was about 6-7 years ago), and uploaded to the website. Next the requirement was changed drastically. I spend another day working on the page (and Hayuge Excel files didn't convert into accessible HTML easily). About a week later, client switches asks that we go back to Version A. Source control would have done this in about 10 minutes. As it was, I had to blow another %$#^^&$# day on the task.
Yes, you need version control either for development purposes or simply for storing your documents. This way, you can go back in time if you're required to do so in order to revert changes or mistake made on a code or documents.
Once you start working on a team that references ever upgrading "components" from multiple callers/applications, version control will be an absolute must. In that environment, there is no way that you can keep up with all the permutations of possible change.
You need version control just like you need insurance in life.
You need version control to manage different file versions. With it, you can get and work on the files from different places and it facilitates team members to collaborate on the same project.