Re: Comments on Presentation Notes Request.

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jan 8, 2009, 09:56 UTC
Message-ID: <20090108095603.GA16136@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.1.00.0901071654530.19665@iabervon.org>

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

Show 6 quoted lines

> > 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