|
| ▲ | RealStickman_ 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| relying on random local copies as a backup strategy is not a strategy. |
| |
|
| ▲ | shakna 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They often only have a binary that you would have to reverse engineer. Source code gets lost. To step outside just utility programs, the reason why Command & Conquer didn't have a remaster was: > I'm not going to get into this conversation, but I feel this needs to be answered. During this project of getting the games on Steam, no source code from any legacy games showed up in the archives. |
|
| ▲ | bryant 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > And the people using it multiple times a year delete it afterwards? The people wouldn't, but in the environments I'm thinking of, security policies might. What you're leaning into is a high-risk backup strategy that would rely mostly on luck to get something remotely close to the current version back online. It's pretty reckless. |
| |
| ▲ | darkwater a day ago | parent [-] | | > The people wouldn't, but in the environments I'm thinking of, security policies might. In environments that go so far (deleting local checkouts of code out of security concerns), I bet they do have a mirror/copy of the version controlled code. |
|
|
| ▲ | Lammy 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| More like “none of the people who worked on it are at the company any more” |
