From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adam Spiers Subject: Re: Re: Subversion for backups? Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:49:56 +0000 Message-ID: <20091104114955.GB18202@atlantic.linksys.moosehall> References: <87ab1nd1ns.wl%ks@mocker.org> <4A952F65.3070005@online.de> <87fxber8zb.wl%ks@mocker.org> <87iqgaa1qi.fsf@fastmail.fm> Reply-To: Adam Spiers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N5eNM-0002CO-RC for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:50:08 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N5eNH-00028K-AM for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:50:08 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60600 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N5eNG-000287-Ug for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:50:03 -0500 Received: from arctic.adamspiers.org ([212.13.194.176]:40157) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N5eNG-0002vY-Hb for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:50:02 -0500 Received: from localhost (dsl-217-155-199-114.zen.co.uk [217.155.199.114]) by arctic.adamspiers.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6659F2401C for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:49:59 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 05:27:40PM +0000, Robert Goldman wrote: > FWIW, my feelings are the exact opposite of Matt's --- I find the added > complexity of having multiple repositories to manage and the general added > complexity of git quite unwelcome. > > If you are trying to keep multiple machines in sync, I find that a centralized > repository scheme is far simpler: all you need to do is manage the relationship > between your working copies and the repository, and that relationship is a very > simple one. This centralized model is also entirely possible with git. > If you have a distributed revision control system and multiple different > repositories, you must manage the relationship between the different > repositories and the relationship between those repositories and your working > copies. Because of the peer-to-peer aspect, this is a complex quadratic mesh of > relationships to manage, instead of the simple linear relationship you have with > a centralized repository. It's not quadratic - it's still linear because it's quite unnecessary to have every repository interacting with every other. > I would say that if (1) you generally are connected to the internet, with only > minor intervals offline and (2) have access to a hosted svn repository (so you > don't manage it yourself, and so that you can use the simple https protocol > instead of fussing with ssh tunneling), then you are likely to find svn much > simpler. I am fortunate that both of these hold for me. I disagree - I think using git with a centralized model provides the best of both worlds: simplicity but also all the nice benefits of decentralization such as offline commit and history access, intelligent merging etc. Lots of people do it this way, e.g. http://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/2008/12/setting-up-centralied-git-repository.html