Re: Re: Subversion for backups?

[Rick Moynihan <rick.moynihan@gmail.com>]

2009/11/4 Adam Spiers <orgmode@adamspiers.org>:
>
>> 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

+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.