On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 05:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
> There's no accounting for users! (Not that I qualify yet...) > > The problem with using a VCS to do backup is that you have to rely on > the users to do it, backups should run independently of the user. > It's guaranteed given time that some project or code will end up bring > useful but not committed and subsequently lost. > Really only units of work or discreet changes should be committed, > rather than the end of the last bug fix and the start of the next. > > Without getting too sidetracked can anyone answer my original > question? While you're correct about me sidetracking the discussion, I feel oblidged to point out that liberating the developer from using one central repo (like in Subversion) exactly provides the possibility to play with different wild ideas, write crazy code and so on without "spoiling" the main repository. This has been touted numerous times as one of the upsides of DVCSes. Hence if you have a place to push your work without the fear of disturbing other people the problem becomes purely social. So I think what's needed is providing the devs with their backup repos and explaining them that backing up their work is just a matter of personal hygiene. After all I can barely beleive that people who managed to master Git are so stupid not to understand these matters provided you provided them with the necessary explanations. Returning to the technical side, I'd be afraid about stuff like [1]. Of course, YMMV depending on precise systems setup but still I doubt convoluted setups such as the one you're proposing receive much testing. 1. http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/issues/detail?id=130 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/git-users?hl=en.
