From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: Comments on Presentation Notes Request. Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:56:03 -0500 Message-ID: <20090108095603.GA16136@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090107063629.GB22616@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Tim Visher , git@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Barkalow X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jan 08 10:57:30 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LKrdo-0001on-Ka for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 10:57:29 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754326AbZAHJ4J (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:56:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753693AbZAHJ4I (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:56:08 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:55673 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752569AbZAHJ4G (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:56:06 -0500 Received: (qmail 6021 invoked by uid 107); 8 Jan 2009 09:56:38 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:56:38 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:56:03 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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