Hacker News Reader

Comment by kevin42 | Hacker News Reader

We originally used Microsoft Source Safe, which added the comments for us. I think Source Safe made us lock a file to make changes, which was a PITA. I think we made a lot of the decisions on where to break out code on a file by file basis because of that. Later, we moved to Perforce, which is good for larger binary files.

View on HN

I worked with VSS for a while and remember the workflow you're describing (lock, edit, check in) and there being a culture of not bundling related changes into commits but instead tossing files in as you realized they were out of date.

It's cool that this was done, thanks!

I remember my wife working remotely and Source "Safe" corrupting the repo when the modem dropped while she was committing her work. Good old days.

I would still like Git to have some kind of memory of a file being edited in some kind of branch. It would make it easier to communicate work done on the same file because you can discover what is being done to it.

I'm surely missing your point here, but isn't that exactly what git does?

`git log <file>` gives you the entire history of commits that touches that particular file.

edit: i suppose you mean the ability to keep track of what is being done in other unmerged branches perhaps?

In this vein, it'd be cool if the git log for each file were prepended to the top of a file in an editor.

Yes, allow people to understand who's touching that file at the same time!

> I think Source Safe made us lock a file to make changes

That's right. Good times!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com