Commiting broken code to the repository for the purpose of backing it up

Posted by Tim Merrifield on Stack Overflow See other posts from Stack Overflow or by Tim Merrifield
Published on 2010-06-14T15:25:30Z Indexed on 2010/06/14 15:52 UTC
Read the original article Hit count: 142

I was just talking to another developer (more senior than I) and trying to convince him that we should implement continuous integration via Cruise Control. He told me that this will not work because he commits code that does not compile to the repository all the time for the purposes of backing it up. And that automated builds notifying us of failures would be just noise.

Committing garbage to the repo sounds bad to me. But I was at a loss of words and didn't know what to say. What is the alternative? What's the best practice for backing up your code on another machine without adding a bunch of pointless revisions?

BTW, our version control system is SVN and that probably won't change any time soon.

© Stack Overflow or respective owner

Related posts about svn

Related posts about version-control