On Apr 23, 2016, at 12:44 AM, Ron W <ronw.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Another potential problem with private branches: Because they don't get > pushed, you loose the safety net of having them replicated in another > (preferably remote) repo.
Not only the safety net, but also the easy ability for everyone to see what everyone else is working on at any time. The whole point of the private branch is that nobody else can even see it. > > Remember: Version control is not - in and of itself - a backup. You need to > properly backup your repo. You should also properly backup workspace (and PC). > > Definitely not. Version control is about tracking changes and in our cases, associating all code changes to tickets, etc. We need to not only restore a file, or a file from a few days ago…but often need to actually go back years in time, see exactly what someone did in some code, think about that and how it impacts our software, and continue working on it. All my local machines except for one linux server are macs backed up by time machine. So I can even go back a few months to restore a lost file. But restoring a lost file is not what version control is about, its about actually looking at the differences between versions and getting into WHAT changed between versions, WHO did it and WHY. And the reason for a central SCM server is more about code sharing between the devs. In my case, there are folks outside of my local network who may participate in development and I can’t guarantee they will have any backup of their local PC happening at all, so I’d rather have them pushing their commits as often as possible to my backed-up SCM server. version control is definitely not a backup though, its a working area where development work takes place. the SCM itself needs to be backed up somewhere else, and don’t forget to the cloud if possible.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
