好吧，我理解你的痛苦:)我也参与过一些这样的项目，它并不漂亮。这个问题没有简单的答案。

一种可行的方法是开始在所有函数中添加安全保护，也就是说，检查方法中的参数、前置/后置条件，然后最终添加单元测试，以便捕获源的当前功能。一旦你有了这些，你就可以更好地重构代码，因为如果你忘记了什么，你就会有断言和错误弹出来提醒你。

有时候，重构带来的痛苦可能会大于好处。那么，最好是让原始项目处于伪维护状态，从头开始，然后增量地添加野兽的功能。

让我猜猜:10个拥有不同功能集的客户和一个提倡“定制化”的销售经理?我以前做过这样的产品。我们遇到了同样的问题。

您认识到拥有一个巨大的文件是很麻烦的，但更麻烦的是您必须保持10个版本的“最新”。这是多重维护。SCC可以使这更容易，但它不能使它正确。

Before you try to break the file into parts, you need to bring the ten branches back in sync with each other so that you can see and shape all the code at once. You can do this one branch at a time, testing both branches against the same main code file. To enforce the custom behavior, you can use #ifdef and friends, but it's better as much as possible to use ordinary if/else against defined constants. This way, your compiler will verify all types and most probably eliminate "dead" object code anyway. (You may want to turn off the warning about dead code, though.)

一旦所有分支隐式地共享了该文件的一个版本，那么就更容易开始使用传统的重构方法。

#ifdefs主要适用于受影响的代码只在其他分支自定义上下文中有意义的部分。有人可能会说，这也为相同的分支合并方案提供了机会，但不要太疯狂。一次只做一个大项目。

In the short run, the file will appear to grow. This is OK. What you're doing is bringing things together that need to be together. Afterwards, you'll begin to see areas that are clearly the same regardless of version; these can be left alone or refactored at will. Other areas will clearly differ depending on the version. You have a number of options in this case. One method is to delegate the differences to per-version strategy objects. Another is to derive client versions from a common abstract class. But none of these transformations are possible as long as you have ten "tips" of development in different branches.

如果我理解错了，请指正。

为什么不能将源代码拆分为函数或类(单独的.h/.cpp文件)并将它们作为头文件包含?当然，一定会重用一些功能。

这将是一个开始。

下面是我所想到的解决这些问题的唯一办法。所述方法的实际增益是演化的累进性。这里没有革命，否则你很快就会陷入麻烦。

在原来的主类上面插入一个新的cpp类。目前，它基本上会将所有调用重定向到当前的主类，但目标是使这个新类的API尽可能清晰和简洁。

一旦完成了这些，就可以在新类中添加新功能。

至于现有的功能，当它们变得足够稳定时，您必须逐步将它们移动到新的类中。对于这段代码，您将失去SCC帮助，但是对此没有太多办法。只要选择合适的时机。

我知道这并不完美，但我希望它能有所帮助，这个过程必须适应您的需要!

额外的信息

注意，Git是一个SCC，它可以从一个文件跟踪代码片段到另一个文件。我听说过关于它的好东西，所以它可以帮助你逐步转移你的工作。

Git是围绕blob的概念构建的，如果我理解正确的话，blob表示代码文件的片段。在不同的文件中移动这些片段，Git会找到它们，即使您修改了它们。除了下面评论中提到的Linus Torvalds的视频之外，我还没有找到关于这个问题的一些清楚的东西。

Find some code in the file which is relatively stable (not changing fast, and doesn't vary much between branches) and could stand as an independent unit. Move this into its own file, and for that matter into its own class, in all branches. Because it's stable, this won't cause (many) "awkward" merges that have to be applied to a different file from the one they were originally made on, when you merge the change from one branch to another. Repeat. Find some code in the file which basically only applies to a small number of branches, and could stand alone. Doesn't matter whether it's changing fast or not, because of the small number of branches. Move this into its own classes and files. Repeat.

因此，我们去掉了到处都一样的代码，以及特定于某些分支的代码。

This leaves you with a nucleus of badly-managed code - it's needed everywhere, but it's different in every branch (and/or it changes constantly so that some branches are running behind others), and yet it's in a single file that you're unsuccessfully trying to merge between branches. Stop doing that. Branch the file permanently, perhaps by renaming it in each branch. It's not "main" any more, it's "main for configuration X". OK, so you lose the ability to apply the same change to multiple branches by merging, but this is in any case the core of code where merging doesn't work very well. If you're having to manually manage the merges anyway to deal with conflicts, then it's no loss to manually apply them independently on each branch.

我认为你说这种SCC无关紧要是错误的，因为例如git的合并能力可能比你正在使用的合并工具更好。因此，核心问题“合并困难”发生在不同scc的不同时期。但是，您不太可能更改scc，因此这个问题可能无关紧要。

这是一个经典的例子，一个已知的反设计模式，称为blob。花点时间阅读我在这里指出的文章，也许你会发现一些有用的东西。此外，如果这个项目像它看起来的那样大，您应该考虑一些设计来防止发展成您无法控制的代码。