Comment by anothergoogler
7 years ago
I'm I the only idiot who would back up the files and make the change, and thinks that the hero contractor's wrong here? Version control is nice, but it's not a prerequisite to shipping, and not using one isn't "extremely dangerous and irresponsible" unless you're working on control systems at a nuclear power plant.
Maybe you shouldn't make the change until you have a Selenium suite, automated rollback, blue/green deployments, a bulletproof status page, and an on-call rotation with a regularly tested runbook. Maybe we should just sit on our hands and make internal improvements until things are perfect.
Reductio ad absurdum. I shoved a code base into version control and set up a super simple but safe deployment strategy. No fancy anything. It put off non critical development for a day and made development faster because I could make sure my code worked locally and not just on the live site.
Some companies value hyper-compliance, some companies value employees that speak up in cases of negligence. You have the freedom to choose your own preferences.
Furthermore, it IS possible to respectfully communicate your concerns and position without being a heroic jackass. My manager on that project and I were on good terms when I left and he served as a recommendation for my next job. The situation wasn't nearly as exaggerated as you're making it.
Version control is a must have for any project involving more than a few files or a few developers. It's simply not acceptable to work without version control in this decade.
Yes, the approach was, in practice, wrong. Make the backup, get the patch out, then put in the deployment system on the side.