From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Moynihan Subject: Re: Re: Subversion for backups? Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:01:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87ab1nd1ns.wl%ks@mocker.org> <4A952F65.3070005@online.de> <87fxber8zb.wl%ks@mocker.org> <87iqgaa1qi.fsf@fastmail.fm> <20091104114955.GB18202@atlantic.linksys.moosehall> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N5gQq-0008Jb-3s for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:01:52 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1N5gQl-0008IZ-Sc for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:01:49 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=53458 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1N5gQk-0008IK-TO for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:01:47 -0500 Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.78.144]:22989) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1N5gQk-0002G3-8Q for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:01:46 -0500 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 4so766827eyg.2 for ; Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:01:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20091104114955.GB18202@atlantic.linksys.moosehall> 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: Adam Spiers , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org 2009/11/4 Adam Spiers : > >> I would say that if (1) you generally are connected to the internet, wit= h 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 proto= col >> instead of fussing with ssh tunneling), then you are likely to find svn = much >> simpler. =A0I 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. =A0Lots of people do it this way, e.g. > > http://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/2008/12/setting-up-centralied-git-repository= .html +10 :-) I use git and it's far easier and more robust than using subversion (which I used prior to git for many years). I have a private centralised git repo setup which I use to sync changes in my org files between desktops at work, home and less frequently my eeepc. git's superior merging capabilities mean that it's trivial to merge changes between all machines... And when they occaisionally get out of sync (as can always happen... even with a cron job pushing) it's easily resolved. I've been bitten by SVN many, MANY times in the past (merging is a pain, the berkley-db dependency has been broken and poorly managed by distros in the past, it interacts wierdly with mDNS on some platforms, the repo sizes are huge, and if left unchecked svn servers will leave lots of temporary files lying around, and having .svn directories littered through your directory tree is a pain). Also the svn repo needs to be backed up seperately... where as with git you get distributed backups for free. 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. YMMV R.