GIT vs. CVS vs. SVN

[Jerry Feldman]

On 11/10/2010 07:07 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> Although there's nothing*wrong*  with what you're saying, you seem to be
> applying the opposite of logic.  A small development team is very conducive
> to svn (centralized) and you get benefits by doing so, as mentioned in my
> other email.  And, since you have a small development team, you don't get
> the main benefits offered by git (decentralized.)
>
> With a decentralized system, the backup plan is unclear...  Literally
> everyone's laptop or workstation or whatever they're using must be backed
> up.  N times the data to backup, if you're supporting N users.  But
> obviously if centralized, you just backup the central repo, and then you can
> make a calculated assessment of risk, to backup peoples' laptops or not.
Actually, we have a backup plan in place. As I did mention, people would 
not be able to work directly from their laptops since all the 
development tools and products are on the servers in this specific case. 
If they use their home directories they are fully backed up as is the 
git central project directories. But you do make a good point. But, even 
CVS (I'm not as familiar with SVN) if your build area is not backed up, 
you modify sources in your workspace, but those are not backed up unless 
you do a commit. I've lost stuff I've modified because I forgot to 
commit. Every system has its strengths and weaknesses.

-- 
Jerry Feldman<gaf-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org>
Boston Linux and Unix
PGP key id: 537C5846
PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB  CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846