Re: Re: Subversion for backups?

[Eric S Fraga <ucecesf@ucl.ac.uk>]

At Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:01:23 +0000,
Rick Moynihan wrote:
> 
> 2009/11/4 Adam Spiers <orgmode@adamspiers.org>:
> >
> > 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
> 
> +10 :-)

[...]

> 
> By comparison git is hassle free and far more robust.  Though git is
> my preference using git, mercurial or bzr would always be preferable
> for me over SVN.

I agree as well.  I gave up on SVN after having been bitten one too
many times.  I will say, however, that although I use git [*] for
keeping my org-mode files in sync, for the central repository model, I
find that mercurial works better in that it's simpler to use.
However, mercurial and git are pretty much the same in this regard.

[*] Despite using mercurial for almost everything else, I use git and
    not mercurial for org-mode as mercurial is not available on my maemo
    Internet tablet....