Not a holy war - just some salient facts

[Mark A. Flacy]

On Thu, 2010-04-08 at 22:23 -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:


> 
> For this kind of thing, I'd say neither mercurial nor bazaar works
> very well. Both of them store the repo with the files in question,
> which means you need to keep backups of all this stuff. Using a
> server-based VCS avoids that: you have the stuff that came with the
> distribution, and then as you config the machine, you add/edit/commit
> the changed files. You back up the central repo, and don't need to
> worry about backing up the os/config parts of the clients.


Oh good grief.

Put a *clone* of your repo on the "central server".  Push and pull to it
as needed.

Mercurial and bazaar will work just fine.

Or even better: have all your machines use each other as clones!  You
now have distributed backups on *any* machine that you use.


> 
> CVS-derived VCS systems are slightly better - they at least store the
> content on the server. However, the information about what's actually
> on the server is stored in little turdlets scattered all over your
> file system. If this is in any way complicated, you have to back that
> information up somewhere.
> 
> FWIW, perforce rocks for this, as it stores *everything* on the server
> (normally a performance problem), including what parts of the repo map
> to where on the file system, with no turds at all in your local file
> system. Restoring a completely trashed system amounts to doing enough
> config to get it on the net under the old name, then doing "p4 sync
> -f" at the root of the system.


Don't forget to backup your server!  :-)

-- 
Mark A. Flacy <mflacy at verizon.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20100408/a77e9fa8/attachment.htm>