Re: Comments on Presentation Notes Request.

[Jeff King <peff@peff.net>]

On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 05:30:04PM -0500, Daniel Barkalow wrote:

> > So yes, you are much more likely to salvage useful (if not all) data
> > from developer repositories in the event of a crash. But I still think
> > it's crazy not to have a backup strategy for your DVCS repo.
> 
> I think it's very important to have a backup strategy, but it's nice that 
> the developers can get work done while the server is still down.

I think everything you said in your email was correct, and I agree with
it, but I just wanted to clarify one thing about what I said.

I really _do_ think you are better off in a disaster or backup situation
with a DVCS. Both this past year and 2007, Junio dropped off the face of
the git planet for a few weeks, and everyone seamlessly switched to
Shawn as maintainer. So I think of the DVCS model almost more as "high
availablity": even if you model your workflow around a central server,
it's easy to route around the failure.

It's just that I don't think these features totally _replace_ backups as
a concept. And I feel like that notion creeps up now and again in the
centralized versus distributed holy wars.

So I think we agree; I just wasn't sure if I gave the wrong impression
from my first email.

-Peff