On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 00:27:12 +0200, Joseph R. Justice
<jayare...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Alaric Snell-Pym
<ala...@snell-pym.org.uk>wrote:
I've written a backup/archival tool based on content-addressible
storage, and a common question people ask is "So why don't I just put my
home directory/entire filesystem in git, then?", and I have to raise
this aspect of the quite different goals between backup and source
control :-)
I note that there are people who *do* put their home directories, .rc
files, etc under source control. (IIRC, I've read stories in, like,
Linux
Journal, lwn.net, blog stories, etc.) I have the distinct impression
that,
often, at least part of the reason for doing this is that the user has
multiple systems they regularly use, and they wish to keep the personal
configuration details and I suppose also the personal data stored on/for
for each system as consistent between systems as is reasonably achievable
to achieve.
I have that demand (keeping ~ 100 GB home directories in sync across two
machines) but never would dream of using a revision control system for
doing that. what one needs here is a bidirectional synchronizer that keeps
track of what has changed (and when) on both sides. I wholeheartedly can
recommend unison for this task
(http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/) whose capabilities go way
beyond basic rsync for this task.
Joseph
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
