Anyone out there using LiveCode in a multi developer project?
Either way, can someone recommend a good source control system / plugin to use?
We've looked at MagicCarpet but since it is no longer developed we wish to use something else.
Thanks
I'm working on a solution to this problem by exporting the stack file as a structured directory of script, json and image files which will diff and merge nicely in most VCS. It is not yet available but the intention is it will be open source. My goal is to demonstrate it at the RunRevLive conference in May.
Here's the repo for lcVCS https://github.com/montegoulding/lcVCS
I have put a git library stack on revOnline (libVersionControl) that exports to structured xml files that git can handle. It works as far as it goes, but I have hopes that Monte's solution will supersede this effort.
revOnline link to stack
Yes, our team has been using LiveCode with multiple developers. Since the Livecode community is still young, acquiring good source control tools can be a challenge. Our solution has been to break code into modules (stack files). When there are updates to merge into the main codebase, we clone our existing codebase, and merge code changes manually using line by line compare in a text editor. This is not a fun process, but is much less painful than it sounds.
If I were to redesign the system, we would simply use Git (Github.com etc.). There is no reason this would not work with Livecode stacks.
We use LiveCode in a small team with Subversion.
We don't have a perfect solution, but it is very lightweight; we all use a custom extension to the standard toolbar, which among other things has a 'save+backup' button. When we started using it with Subversion, we added code to this button which saves an XML sidecar file for the stack. The file contains all the scripts, custom properties, and optionally fields (controlled by user property in each stack). In our case almost all of our work is in scripts, so this works for us.
The effect is that each time we commit to SVN, we're always committing two files, the LiveCode stack and the accompanying sidecar file - the latter works fine for diffing etc.
Where this lets us down is that we don't have any solution for merging. If we were working on larger systems more actively, we'd also modify I expect look to modify the sidecar format into a complete folder of files. For now however this makes the situation workable (and it takes no noticeable time to generate the sidecar file).
Happy to share code if that was useful.
I know of a tool thats being worked on that is going to really help in this regard. When he showed it to me it looked very functional already. But I'm not sure when he will share it with the community.
So the point is, its just a matter of time before people's stuff comes together to make a turn key solution for this.
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.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been developing iOS apps for about a year. In that time, I have developed a fair number of classes that I frequently recycle from app to app. For example, I have a bunch of classes related to making it easier to write table views to control in-app settings.
Right now, I simply grab these classes from one app and paste them into the next one. My question is -- at what point is it likely to be easier to create and use a static library?
Static libraries have their problems as well.
Using a static library discourages you from fixing problems as you see them, since the code is in another project and it becomes troublesome.
GCC has a bug in whereas any method defined in a category is optimized away from the static library. Not good if you library code consist of lots and lots of convenience categories on existing classes.
So what you want is a solution where you can add dependencies to actual source code. This way you avoid the nasty GCC bug, and the boy scout rule is encouraged!
Our solution is a simple dependency system based on Rake. It creates sym-links to the source code of the shared libraries, and hard copies when building on the build server (You should never build the distribution binaries on a developers own machine!).
The sym-links allow developers to edit the shared code just as if it was part of the current project, while ensuring any cleanups, bug-fixes, etc. are always propagated to a single repository and benefits all projects using the shared library.
The hard-copies on the build server allows for the shared libraries to be tagged for version, so that the exact build of v1.0 you sent to App Store is forever reproducible!
A colegue of mine have blogged about setting up a build server for continious integration here: http://blog.jayway.com/2010/01/31/continuos-integration-for-xcode-projects/
I will nag him to blog and share the Rake based dependency system as well. It is basically just a handful of lines with Ruby script.
I have my own library of miscellaneous stuff.
I add things to it that I deem to be reasonably generic and that I can envisage using in the future at some point.
After all, there's no harm in adding it to your library, even if you never use it again.
As soon as you tire of copying and pasting you should create a library. Or, as soon as you make your first mistake (mis-)copying and (mis-)pasting.
Or, in more business-like terms: when the net present value exceeds the net present cost.
If you want to distribute your classes out to your "team", then you will not have to worry about changes they make to your code, thus keeping the libary consistant.
Or if you wanted to sell your classes as API's to another DEV team then your can hide the source code from the API user.
I have a few "utility" classes that I find usuful and I do tend to drop the class file into my solution as I find it easier and quicker, (not that the extra 2 to 3 clicks matter), so really i suppose i do it out of habbit more than anything else.
Another solution is to use use a version control system (such as git) that supports submodules. You can wrap up each of these helper classes (or even a collection of classes) in its own repository which can be imported into the main repository of your code.
In this way you don't have to worry about cutting and pasting errors. Also, if you make improvements to these classes they can be propagated to other projects that use them (if you want to), yet you can always roll back to previous versions for bug fixing / testing.
It is common to find such helper code on sites such as github example
I have a static library that is in a separate project.
That way I can fully develop the library, complete with unit tests etc. and then simply re-use it by making another project dependant on it.
It means I don't have to cut/paste, and it also means that should I find/fix a bug, or add/modify a feature of the library, then it can be regression tested easily.
Now all the projects that use that library can benefit.
So for my money, the time to turn a collection of 'useful code' into a library is certainly when you find you want to use it again.
(Of course we all have useful code snippets we re-use by copy/paste from a previous project - those aren't necessarily right for being in a library.)
This is a debate I'm taking a part in. I would like to get more opinions and points of view.
We have some classes that are generated in build time to handle DB operations (in This specific case, with SubSonic, but I don't think it is very important for the question). The generation is set as a pre-build step in Visual Studio. So every time a developer (or the official build process) runs a build, these classes are generated, and then compiled into the project.
Now some people are claiming, that having these classes saved in source control could cause confusion, in case the code you get, doesn't match what would have been generated in your own environment.
I would like to have a way to trace back the history of the code, even if it is usually treated as a black box.
Any arguments or counter arguments?
UPDATE: I asked this question since I really believed there is one definitive answer. Looking at all the responses, I could say with high level of certainty, that there is no such answer. The decision should be made based on more than one parameter. Reading the answers below could provide a very good guideline to the types of questions you should be asking yourself when having to decide on this issue.
I won't select an accepted answer at this point for the reasons mentioned above.
Saving it in source control is more trouble than it's worth.
You have to do a commit every time you do a build for it to be any value.
Generally we leave generated code( idl, jaxb stuff, etc) outside source control where I work and it's never been a problem
Put it in source code control. The advantage of having the history of everything you write available for future developers outweighs the minor pain of occasionally rebuilding after a sync.
Every time I want to show changes to a source tree on my own personal repo, all the 'generated files' will show up as having changed and need comitting.
I would prefer to have a cleaner list of modifications that only include real updates that were performed, and not auto-generated changes.
Leave them out, and then after a build, add an 'ignore' on each of the generated files.
Look at it this way: do you check your object files into source control? Generated source files are build artifacts just like object files, libraries and executables. They should be treated the same. Most would argue that you shouldn't be checking generated object files and executables into source control. The same arguments apply to generated source.
If you need to look at the historical version of a generated file you can sync to the historical version of its sources and rebuild.
Checking generated files of any sort into source control is analogous to database denormalization. There are occasionally reasons to do this (typically for performance), but this should be done only with great care as it becomes much harder to maintain correctness and consistency once the data is denormalized.
I would say that you should avoid adding any generated code (or other artifacts) to source control. If the generated code is the same for the given input then you could just check out the versions you want to diff and generate the code for comparison.
I call the DRY principle. If you already have the "source files" in the repository which are used to generate these code files at build time, there is no need to have the same code committed "twice".
Also, you might avert some problems this way if for example the code generation breaks someday.
No, for three reasons.
Source code is everything necessary and sufficient to reproduce a snapshot of your application as of some current or previous point in time - nothing more and nothing less. Part of what this implies is that someone is responsible for everything checked in. Generally I'm happy to be responsible for the code I write, but not the code that's generated as a consequence of what I write.
I don't want someone to be tempted to try to shortcut a build from primary sources by using intermediate code that may or may not be current (and more importantly that I don't want to accept responsibility for.) And't it's too tempting for some people to get caught up in a meaningless process about debugging conflicts in intermediate code based on partial builds.
Once it's in source control, I accept responsibility for a. it being there, b. it being current, and c. it being reliably integratable with everything else in there. That includes removing it when I'm no longer using it. The less of that responsibility the better.
I really don't think you should check them in.
Surely any change in the generated code is either going to be noise - changes between environments, or changes as a result of something else - e.g. a change in your DB. If your DB's creation scripts (or any other dependencies) are in source control then why do you need the generated scripts as well?
The general rule is no, but if it takes time to generate the code (because of DB access, web services, etc.) then you might want to save a cached version in the source control and save everyone the pain.
Your tooling also need to be aware of this and handle checking-out from the source control when needed, too many tools decide to check out from the source control without any reason.
A good tool will use the cached version without touching it (nor modifying the time steps on the file).
Also you need to put big warning inside the generated code for people to not modify the file, a warning at the top is not enough, you have to repeat it every dozen lines.
We don't store generated DB code either: since it is generated, you can get it at will at any given version from the source files. Storing it would be like storing bytecode or such.
Now, you need to ensure the code generator used at a given version is available! Newer versions can generate different code...
There is a special case where you want to check in your generated files: when you may need to build on systems where tools used to generate the other files aren't available. The classic example of this, and one I work with, is Lex and Yacc code. Because we develop a runtime system that has to build and run on a huge variety of platforms and architectures, we can only rely on target systems to have C and C++ compilers, not the tools necessary to generate the lexing/parsing code for our interface definition translator. Thus, when we change our grammars, we check in the generated code to parse it.
Leave it out.
If you're checking in generated files you're doing something wrong. What's wrong may differ, it could be that your build process is inefficient, or something else, but I can't see it ever being a good idea. History should be associated with the source files, not the generated ones.
It just creates a headache for people who then end up trying to resolve differences, find the files that are no longer generated by the build and then delete them, etc.
A world of pain awaits those who check in generated files!
In some projects I add generated code to source control, but it really depends. My basic guideline is if the generated code is an intrinsic part of the compiler then I won't add it. If the generated code is from an external tool, such as SubSonic in this case, then I would add if to source control. If you periodically upgrade the component then I want to know the changes in the generated source in case bugs or issues arise.
As far as generated code needing to be checked in, a worst case scenario is manually differencing the files and reverting the files if necessary. If you are using svn, you can add a pre-commit hook in svn to deny a commit if the file hasn't really changed.
arriving a bit late ... anyway ...
Would you put compiler's intermediate file into source version control ?
In case of code generation, by definition the source code is the input of the generator while the generated code can be considered as intermediate files between the "real" source and the built application.
So I would say: don't put generated code under version control, but the generator and its input.
Concretely, I work with a code generator I wrote: I never had to maintain the generated source code under version control. I would even say that since the generator reached a certain maturity level, I didn't have to observe the contents of generated code although the input (for instance model description) changed.
The job of configuration management (of which version control is just one part) is to be able to do the following:
Know which changes and bug fixes have gone into every delivered build.
Be able to reproduce exactly any delivered build, starting from the original source code. Automatically generated code does not count as "source code" regardless of the language.
The first one ensures that when you tell the client or end user "the bug you reported last week is fixed and the new feature has been added" they don't come back two hours later and say "no it hasn't". It also makes sure they don't say "Why is it doing X? We never asked for X".
The second one means that when the client or end user reports a bug in some version you issued a year ago you can go back to that version, reproduce the bug, fix it, and prove that it was your fix has eliminated the bug rather than some perturbation of compiler and other fixes.
This means that your compiler, libraries etc also need to be part of CM.
So now to answer your question: if you can do all the above then you don't need to record any intermediate representations, because you are guaranteed to get the same answer anyway. If you can't do all the above then all bets are off because you can never guarantee to do the same thing twice and get the same answer. So you might as well put all your .o files under version control as well.
There are good arguments both for and against presented here.
For the record, I build the T4 generation system in Visual Studio and our default out-of-the-box option causes generated code to be checked in. You have to work a bit harder if you prefer not to check in.
For me the key consideration is diffing the generated output when either the input or generator itself is updated.
If you don't have your output checked in, then you have to take a copy of all generated code before upgrading a generator or modifying input in order to be able to compare that with the output from the new version. I think this is a fairly tedious process, but with checked in output, it's a simple matter of diffing the new output against the repository.
At this point, it is reasonable to ask "Why do you care about changes in generated code?" (Especially as compared to object code.)
I believe there are a few key reasons, which come down to the current state of the art rather than any inherent problem.
You craft handwritten code that meshes tightly with generated code. That's not the case on the whole with obj files these days. When the generated code changes, it's sadly quite often the case that some handwritten code needs to change to match. Folks often don't observe a high degree of backwards compatibility with extensibility points in generated code.
Generated code simply changes its behavior. You wouldn't tolerate this from a compiler, but in fairness, an application-level code generator is targeting a different field of problem with a wider range of acceptable solutions. It's important to see if assumptions you made about previous behavior are now broken.
You just don't 100% trust the output of your generator from release to release. There's a lot of value to be had from generator tools even if they aren't built and maintained with the rigor of your compiler vendor. Release 1.0 might have been perfectly stable for your application but maybe 1.1 has a few glitches for your use case now. Alternatively you change input values and find that you are exercisig a new piece of the generator that you hadn't used before - potentially you get surprised by the results.
Essentially all of these things come down to tool maturity - most business app code generators aren't close to the level that compilers or even lex/yacc-level tools have been for years.
Both side have valid and reasonable argument, and it's difficult to agree on something common. Version Control Systems (VCSs) tracks the files
developers put into it, and have the assumption that the files inside VCS are hand crafted by developers, and developers are interested in the history
and change between any revision of the files. This assumption equalize the two concepts, "I want to get this file when I do checkout." and "I am
interested in the change of this file."
Now, the arguments from both sides could be rephrase like this:
"I want to get all these generated files when I do checkout, because I don't have the tool to generate them in this machine."
"I should not put them into VCS, since I am not interested in the change of this file."
Fortunately, it seems that the two requirements are not conflicting fundamentally. With some extension of current VCSs, it should be possible to have
both. In other words, it's a false dilemma. If we ponder a while, it's not hard to realize that the problem stems from the assumption VCSs hold. VCSs
should distinguish the files, which are hand crafted by developers, from files which are not hand crafted by developers, but just happens to be inside
this VCS. For the first category of files, which we call source files (code) usually, VCSs have done great job now. For the latter category, VCSs have
not had such concept yet, as far as I know.
Summary
I will take git as one example to illustrate what I mean.
git status should not show generated files by default.
git commit should include generated files as snapshot.
git diff should not show generated files by default.
PS
Git hooks could be used as a workaround, but it would be great if git supports it natively. gitignore doesn't meet our requirement, for ignored
files won't go into VCSs.enter code here
I would argue for. If you're using a continuous integration process that checks out the code, modifies the build number, builds the software and then tests it, then it's simpler and easier to just have that code as part of your repository.
Additionally, it's part and parcel of every "snapshot" that you take of your software repository. If it's part of the software, then it should be part of the repository.
It really depends. Ultimately, the goal is to be able to reproduce what you had if need be. If you are able to regenerate your binaries exactly, there is no need to store them. but you need to remember that in order to recreate your stuff you will probably need your exact configuration you did it with in the first place, and that not only means your source code, but also your build environment, your IDE, maybe even other libraries, generators or stuff, in the exact configuration (versions) you have used.
I have run into trouble in projects were we upgraded our build environment to newer versions or even to another vendors', where we were unable to recreate the exact binaries we had before. This is a real pain when the binaries to be deplyed depend on a kind of hash, especially in secured environment, and the recreated files somehow differ because of compiler upgrades or whatever.
So, would you store generated code: I would say no. The binaries or deliverables that are released, including the tools that you reproduced them with I would store. And then, there is no need to store them in source control, just make a good backup of those files.
I (regretfully) wind up putting a lot of derived sources under source control because I work remotely with people who either can't be bothered to set up a proper build environment or who don't have the skills to set it up so that the derived sources are built exactly right. (And when it comes to Gnu autotools, I am one of those people myself! I can't work with three different systems each of which works with a different version of autotools—and only that version.)
This sort of difficulty probably applies more to part-time, volunteer, open-source projects than to paid projects where the person paying the bills can insist on a uniform build environment.
When you do this, you're basically committing to building the derived files only at one site, or only at properly configured sites. Your Makefiles (or whatever) should be set up to notice where they are running and should refuse to re-derive sources unless they know they are running at a safe build site.
The correct answer is "It Depends". It depends upon what the client's needs are.
If you can roll back code to a particular release and stand up to any external audit's without it, then you're still not on firm ground. As dev's we need to consider not just 'noise', pain and disk space, but the fact that we are tasked with the role of generating intellectual property and there may be legal ramifications. Would you be able to prove to a judge that you're able to regenerate a web site exactly the way a customer saw it two years ago?
I'm not suggesting you save or don't save gen'd files, whichever way you decide if you're not involving the Subject Matter Experts of the decision you're probably wrong.
My two cents.
I would say that yes you want to put it under source control. From a configuration management standpoint EVERYTHING that is used to produce a software build needs to be controlled so that it can be recreated. I understand that generated code can easily be recreated, but an argument can be made that it is not the same since the date/timestamps will be different between the two builds. In some areas such as government, they require a lot of times this is what's done.
In general, generated code need not be stored in source control because the revision history of this code can be traced by the revision history of the code that generated it!
However, it sounds the OP is using the generated code as the data access layer of the application instead of manually writing one. In this case, I would change the build process, and commit the code to source control because it is a critical component of the runtime code. This also removes the dependency on the code generation tool from the build process in case the developers need to use different version of the tool for different branches.
It seems that the code only needs to be generated once instead of every build. When a developer needs to add/remove/change the way an object accesses the database, the code should be generated again, just like making manual modifications. This speeds up the build process, allows manual optimizations to be made to the data access layer, and history of the data access layer is retained in a simple manner.
If it is part of the source code then it should be put in source control regardless of who or what generates it. You want your source control to reflect the current state of your system without having to regenerate it.
Absolutely have the generated code in source control, for many reasons. I'm reiterating what a lot of people have already said, but some reasons I'd do it are
With codefiles in source control, you'll potentially be able to compile the code without using your Visual Studio pre-build step.
When you're doing a full comparison between two versions, it would be nice to know if the generated code changed between those two tags, without having to manually check it.
If the code generator itself changes, then you'll want to make sure that the changes to the generated code changes appropriately. i.e. If your generator changes, but the output isn't supposed to change, then when you go to commit your code, there will be no differences between what was previously generated and what's in the generated code now.
I would leave generated files out of a source tree, but put it in a separate build tree.
e.g. workflow is
checkin/out/modify/merge source normally (w/o any generated files)
At appropriate occasions, check out source tree into a clean build tree
After a build, checkin all "important" files ("real" source files, executables + generated source file) that must be present for auditing/regulatory purposes. This gives you a history of all appropriate generated code+executables+whatever, at time increments that are related to releases / testing snapshots, etc. and decoupled from day-to-day development.
There's probably good ways in Subversion/Mercurial/Git/etc to tie the history of the real source files in both places together.
Looks like there are very strong and convincing opinions on both sides. I would recommend reading all the top voted answers, and then deciding what arguments apply to your specific case.
UPDATE: I asked this question since I really believed there is one definitive answer. Looking at all the responses, I could say with high level of certainty, that there is no such answer. The decision should be made based on more than one parameter. Reading the other answers could provide a very good guideline to the types of questions you should be asking yourself when having to decide on this issue.
I do alot of bugfixing and implementing new features for several different customers. These customers all report their bugs, change requests and new feature request into our Trac system.
Sometimes these requests result in me creating some SQL change scripts, sometimes there are Excel documents or Access databases with testdata, Word documents from the customer and so on. Alot of files that are used to fix one ticket and then can be deletede when the ticket is closed.
I usualy do this by creating folders in the filesystem like this: /customerXX/TicketNNNNN and then just dumping everything in there.
How do you organize your workfiles? Have you found some fantastic tool to do this?
I would say for scripts or files that are related to a particular ticket, the best thing to do would be to attach the file to that ticket in your issue tracking software - almost all issue trackers that I've worked with will allow you to do this. That way, you can look back and a) see exactly what you did in case something goes wrong, or b) do exactly the same thing if the issue comes up again later. That's almost certainly the best place to keep files with extra info from the customer, too (or at least the first place most people will look).
For frequently re-used scripts that aren't specific to a particular ticket, I would create a scripts/ or bin/ directory in the associated project, and keep them in there.
I also have a small handful of useful files that I keep in src/misc/ off my home directory, with things like SQL queries to get readable "explain" output out of Oracle and such, that aren't specific to any particular project. The number of these is small enough that subdirectories aren't necessary, though - I suspect if you ended up with a large number of these files, many of them could/should be moved to specific projects or your issue tracking system.
JIRA has been quite helpful for this at my site. It supports issue tracking, file attachments,and you can easily customize and categorize your projects and issues.
I use Fogbugz and I add all file to the case. I believe that no matter what application you use, The important is to keep this files for future references. If your bug-tracking tool does not let you attach file then add the files to the version control.
We use CaWeb4 and find it very easy to use for our bug tracking.