My history of using history
Years ago, when I was working for MySQL AB, one of my projects was to write a specialized storage engine for a specific customer. Before I started from scratch, I chatted with some of Wise Master developers who had been working on that codebase from the very beginning, describing what this new code had to do.
Wise Master: "Oh, that’s very similar to the old foobar engine, use that as your starting point."
Me: "I’ve never heard of the foobar engine, it’s not in any of the docs, and I’ve never seen it in the code."
Wise Master: "Oh, we removed it, years ago. But it will be in the VCS history, grab it from there."
Sure enough, I walked back in time in the VCS, and there was the foobar engine. It did not compile against the current state of the project, but a few days work fixed that, and another few days modified it to meet the requirements for this particular custom engine project.
This saved us months, and delighted the customer.
Gotta get back, back to the past
We have gotten used to using VCSs, such as Git, but we still have not fully realized what having a VCS gives us: easy access to the past, and safer exploration of possible futures, without intruding on the present.
Removing without fear, restoring without pain
As we started working on refactoring the NTP codebase, one of our key metrics of progress is how much the code is shrinking. ESR has written a blog post (https://blog.ntpsec.org/2016/11/29/less-is-more.html) about the removals, for great wins in tractiblity, by reducing the necessary congnitive load required for working on the project.
Sometimes we removed too much. When we did, we would bring it back. Which we could do because it was all sitting in the history. Deleting code we should not is an low-cost easily reversed error.
Onlookers are concerned, they need not be
Some people watching us work from the outside have been saying that we are going too far, we are removing stuff that is harmless, or that has not (yet) been shown to have bugs or security issues.
Their concern is fueled by the reality that writing code is hard work, that someone sweated expensive time and scarce attention over writing that code, and it is wrong to throw away something so valuable.
While I understand their concern, it demonstrates that often we the open source communities have not yet actually understood what it means to have a VCS. All that code is not gone. It is still sitting in the VCS history, with a copy everywhere that someone has run "git clone".
The past’s possible futures hopes go in history, not the present
As we dug deeper we found half-done projects and experiments, things that were never finished, or never worked, or were never used and were insecure.
Those, we also deleted, fearlessly. If any of it may be needed again, there it is, sitting in the history.
Where the present’s possible futures belong
The amazing thing about Git, that we often forget makes it so different from most earlier commonly used VCSs, is local feature branches. Before Git, feature branches were difficult. Before VCS, they basically were impossible.
And so, instead of feature branches, projects as old and as active as NTP routinely shipped with code that was, at best, #ifdef’ed out as "under construction", and at worse, shipped incomplete and documented with "don’t use this, it’s not done". Not from any failure on the part of the original developers, but just due to weaknesses in the tools they had.
Making way for tomorrow, today
The NTPsec project’s current use of Git is still very straightforward, and without a lot of "Git-fu". But I think that will change, as we get more developers who don’t need "master commit" powers. We will get more feature branches, that get merged to the 'master' branch after code review.
But in the meantime, we will leave the history in the history, where it belongs.