On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Greg Keogh <g...@mira.net> wrote: > >If there's a hole in my argument I need to know. > > > > Well, it seems clear to me that a version control system is written > specifically for that purpose, and a backup system for that specific purpose > (unless the designers and authors of the system have made some political > statement about overlapping intentions). > > Well, a VCS is supposed to be a superset of a backup.
> > > I’m sure the version software authors try to make the version system as > robust as possible, but I did experience a serious corruption of Source Safe > a few years ago and we never managed to get some archived old software > versions out of it. For that reason I don’t consider a version system any > kind of backup at all. At that previous job they were backing up the version > backing files to tape, but it was clear that they had been backing up > corrupt version files for a year or so. > > > > There’s the hole. > > > That's a hole in SourceSafe. I acknowledge that sourcesafe isn't safe. (and I think MS do, as well, for large implementations) Another 'hole' is that files that SVN don't 'understand' get a complete new file for every revision, rather than a diff. -- Meski "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
