10 ms·

Back in the day people used to build a website without any versioning. Just make it and upload it. Make a change, upload it again.

• flyingshelf 12d ago
  Then people realized why that's such a bad idea
  • pkal 12d ago
    Why should it be? In my experience it depends on the case, and in my case it seems like an absolute technological overkill to version the site and have statichost regularly pull from some repository, as I update it perhaps once a year.
    • deleted 12d ago
      [deleted]
    • odo1242 12d ago
      I mean, versioning is basically free from a technical / storage / time spent standpoint, and my experience says that if you don’t do it you likely will lose your code at some point
      • xigoi 11d ago
        I use Git for version control, but not for deployment because I don’t want to bother making a commit every time I want to fix a typo.
      • notRobot 12d ago
        To be fair you can have versions and backups even if you don't use a versioning tool like git. Good old _v2, _v3, _v4.
        • odo1242 12d ago
          Fair, but like, why??
          • embedding-shape 12d ago
            Simpler. Or you work/collaborate on projects with people who really shouldn't have to learn Git, even via a GUI. I'm a programmer by trade and do plenty of versioning via _v1 and so on when working on music with others, we basically send .zip files over Telegram and append some label at the end. Not gonna ask these people to learn something when basic "have many copies" does the trick sufficiently good.
      • carlosjobim 12d ago
        If you're making static websites, there's no code to lose.
        • flyingshelf 12d ago
          Is that why even Google Docs has version control?
        • odo1242 12d ago
          Second order code loss: make a change, realize you screwed everything up, unable to revert