On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 05:30:04PM -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > So yes, you are much more likely to salvage useful (if not all) data > > from developer repositories in the event of a crash. But I still think > > it's crazy not to have a backup strategy for your DVCS repo. > > I think it's very important to have a backup strategy, but it's nice that > the developers can get work done while the server is still down. I think everything you said in your email was correct, and I agree with it, but I just wanted to clarify one thing about what I said. I really _do_ think you are better off in a disaster or backup situation with a DVCS. Both this past year and 2007, Junio dropped off the face of the git planet for a few weeks, and everyone seamlessly switched to Shawn as maintainer. So I think of the DVCS model almost more as "high availablity": even if you model your workflow around a central server, it's easy to route around the failure. It's just that I don't think these features totally _replace_ backups as a concept. And I feel like that notion creeps up now and again in the centralized versus distributed holy wars. So I think we agree; I just wasn't sure if I gave the wrong impression from my first email. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
