Let the Airing of Grievances series continue: I got a lot of problems with version control misuse, and now you’re gonna hear about it!
Not Using Version Control
You’ve got to be some special kind of stupid to not use a version control system. Software is just too dang fragile to go without protection.
Using Outdated Version Control Systems
Still using CVS like it’s 1999? How about Rational ClearCase? If so, it’s time to upgrade. Git seems to be the go-to standard these days, though Subversion still has a place for projects where centralized control is better than distributed control. My opinion? Just use Git.
Code changes ought to be incremental and small, and they ought to be committed in frequent intervals. However, some people like to make one giant, killer commit at a time with bajillions of lines of changes. Nobody wants to review those pull requests. Break things up into smaller pieces!
No Comments with Commits
Look back in your version control history to see how many messages look like this:
Really? How is this helpful? Please give a meaningful message. It doesn’t need to be long – a one-liner is fine. But describe what makes the commit significant. Otherwise, tracing through history is dang near impossible!
Never Committing Changes
For whatever reason, some people will check out code, make changes, run locally, and NEVER commit the changes back to the repository. This happened frequently at a previous job with offshore test automation contractors. They would add new tests and fix bugs but never share them back with the team. They’d even email code back and forth, rather than commit! I just can’t even.
Committing Code that Doesn’t Even Compile
Never Pushing Changes
In Git, there is a difference between “commit” (which commits the change locally) and “push” (which pushes all local commits to the remote repository). Some people never push. Then, they wonder why they can’t open pull requests. Or, they lose their code after a Blue Screen wipes out their machine. Make it a habit to push at the end of the workday, whether it’s needed or not.
Branches are like swim lanes: every contributor (or group) can develop code without interfering with others. They also make concurrent release work possible. Using only one branch doesn’t “simplify” development – it just causes an integration mess. For example, I once worked in an organization where the QA architect insisted that test automation should not use multiple branches and, instead, have if/else conditions for differences between release branches. (I fought tooth-and-nail against it and lost.) Code duplication became rampant. Always adopt a good branching strategy, even for test automation. Gitflow is a good example workflow.
Stale branches mean old code and merge conflicts. Nobody wants those. Keep your local branches up-to-date.
Not Deleting Feature Branches
In Git, feature branches are meant to have a short lifespan: you create one to develop a new feature or fix a bug or whatever, and then you delete it after the pull request is completed. However, some people don’t delete those old branches. Over time on a team, those old branches really add up and pollute the repository. Delete them as a common courtesy.
Botched Merge Conflict Resolution
Merge conflicts themselves are not the grievance. Nobody likes them, but they are inevitable on any team. However, botched merge conflict resolution is a HUGE grievance. Would you be mad if you spent a lot of time fixing a problem, only to have some other schmuck accidentally undo your code change with an overwrite? Please be careful when merging. If you aren’t sure that your merge will be good, there’s no shame in asking for help.
Not Re-compiling and Re-testing after Merging
What’s worse than messing up a merge? Committing the changes without testing them first! Merges are risky, and mistakes happen – but that’s why it is imperative to make sure everything is still good after a merge. I’ve seen people blindly post pull request updates after resolving merge conflicts, only to have the build fail with compiler warnings. Don’t do that.
Granting Everyone Full Repository Permissions
While everyone on the team should contribute, not everyone should contribute in the same ways. If there are no security policies set up, then users will do dangerous things, whether accidentally or deliberately. They could circumvent the review process. They could rename things unexpectedly. One time, I saw a guy delete the remote master branch! (Thank goodness we recovered it quickly.) Put permissions into place before bad things happen.