I work at a company that is looking into "upgrading" our version control system. We have about 200 websites that operate in their own directories. However, all of these websites use the same shared code. We basically use the 200 directories for the display code (html/css) and then the shared code for the processing and database queries. Its a little more detailed but I'll leave it at that for now. We also have a backend system that primarily uses shared code only.
We currently have multiple programmers and multiple coders/designers that all need access to the code on a regular basis. Unfortunately our shared code isn't exactly modular, so it is hard to split something off into a "project" when something needs done since so many files are hit. I am basically looking for suggestions on the best workflow available for a version control system. As far as we can tell from research, git seems to be the way to go. But being the version control newbies that we are, we still have concerns on general workflow. Can anyone give me any advice on this topic?
Edit:
I'm trying to be a little more detailed, hopefully I answer some questions from the comments. Pretty much anyone is allowed to change any code at any time. If a change is made to shared code then it is immediately applied to the central code base. We don't really have a versioning scheme. We used to in the past but it was never enforced when new developers were brought on board. The shared code is clearly separated from the rest of the code. There are a few files in our system that get edited a lot. We are constantly "stepping on each other's toes" with these files. These files are very important to our system. I'll be the first one to say this is not an ideal work situation. We are well aware these files need to go. We are in the planning process of modularizing them but we would still need to consider them when choosing a versioning system. I guess another good thing to mention is the fact that we have a large number of files. This isn't ideal either but its happened primarily from not having a sound version control system put in place. Many developers over the years would just save a back up of a file if making a significant change. This is another reason we want to move away from the current scheme. Thanks for your responses already.
Best Answer
@jbc1785: I'm going to take a stab at this based on the following assumptions about your code and your team -
In your situation, I would recommend that you start off with a centralized version control system like Subversion (SVN) instead of a distributed one like Git. I have worked in places without version control systems and (as you have correctly identified) it is vital to put in place a version control tool that simple and provides a simple workflow that teaches good version control habits. Since you have a system where you have a high chance of multiple developers making changes to the same file at the same time, you should leverage a centralized tool like subversion better to reduce the amount of errors and confusion that can occur with merge conflicts.
Subversion provides a "lock" functionality that allows users to lock files that they are editing - I recommend you use this in the initial stages so that your team gets used to the concepts of checking out and editing files. The lock status will reduce the initial confusion by making clear that a file is being currently worked on by someone and that conflicts will occur if the file is changed by someone else.
As the team gets used to the concepts of version control you can disable the "lock" functionality and introduce the concept of merging files, "merge conflicts" and their resolution. Usually once a team gets comfortable with the concept of locked files, the necessary caution and communication needed for working on files in parallel gets developed.
Once the team gets used to working with Subversion, a DVCS like Git is the logical next step. It's very easy (there are multiple tools) to move from Subversion over to Git. In fact you can run Subversion and Git in parallel and migrate over. Git scores over Subversion in terms of performance, ability to scale and the fact that since it's distributed there are no single points of failure. I think the only problem with Git is that it's command syntax is a bit cryptic and it takes a bit of getting used to.
Update: Since the comments for this post are getting numerous and hidden, I thought I'd add them to the post itself in an effort to make it more easily seen.
According to @Tamás Szelei and @JanHudec, DVCS is the way to go since locking is a bad feature of centralized version control systems that should be avoided. The contention is that Subversion dont have a good merge feature and therefore uses locking as a way to get around that deficiency.
While I accept that merging in Subversion is not as great as it is in a DVCS like Git, I disagree that using locks and the workflow encouraged by Subversion is necessarily an evil thing that should be avoided at all costs. I think Subversion has its place and in certain situations (like in case of binary files - mentioned in the other answer to this question) might even be better suited than a DVCS.
This is a matter of opinion and I still believe that given the situation mentioned in the question (listed in the beginning of this answer) using Subversion is a good way to instill version control practices and workflows in a team that have never used version control before.