encrypting script-only stacks

[Richard Gaskin]

I use Nextcloud with my work folders, so backup with versions is 
automatic, and it keeps everything synced across my Mac, Linux, and Win 
boxes along with it.

But my needs are modest.  Because I rarely work in teams larger than 
three to five developers, and we assign tasks by skill focus so we 
rarely need to have two devs working on the same stack file at the same 
time, we rarely need automated merge assistance.  In the few cases where 
we have needed a merge, a prop diff and tossed-together script-diff have 
been sufficient.

I will be using Git more in 2020, though, for open source work, likely 
on Github (though I'm still considering Gitlab since it's open source 
itself).

Help me motivate to move my Git transition forward sooner:

Beyond backup across versions (since that's widely available in most 
cloud storage for even binary files), that Git features do you find most 
valuable?

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems


Kaveh Bazargan wrote:

 > The benefits of SoS are so important that I would hate to have to go
 > back to binary again. Nothing like having pure text files to version,
 > back up etc. so I am also hoping for an elegant solution to encode
 > these in standalone.
 >
 > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 17:31, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
 > use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
 >
 >> Sure, and with the extra benefit that you wouldn't have to expose
 >> your code to end-users.
 >>
 >> That is, unless there's a way to include SoS in a standalone that
 >> includes encryption, such as an automated method in the Standalone
 >> Builder.
 >>
 >> I couldn't find one, but it seems like such a pervasive issue for the
 >> class of devs most likely to use SoS (pros dependent on VCS) that I'm
 >> hoping I just missed something.
 >>
 >> --
 >>   Richard Gaskin
 >>   Fourth World Systems