[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Orgmode] Re: Subversion for backups?

From: Eric S Fraga
Subject: Re: [Orgmode] Re: Subversion for backups?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:49:14 +0000
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.15.6 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.9 (Gojō) APEL/10.7 Emacs/23.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)

At Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:01:23 +0000,
Rick Moynihan wrote:
> 2009/11/4 Adam Spiers <address@hidden>:
> >
> > I disagree - I think using git with a centralized model provides the
> > best of both worlds: simplicity but also all the nice benefits of
> > decentralization such as offline commit and history access,
> > intelligent merging etc.  Lots of people do it this way, e.g.
> >
> > http://feeding.cloud.geek.nz/2008/12/setting-up-centralied-git-repository.html
> +10 :-)


> By comparison git is hassle free and far more robust.  Though git is
> my preference using git, mercurial or bzr would always be preferable
> for me over SVN.

I agree as well.  I gave up on SVN after having been bitten one too
many times.  I will say, however, that although I use git [*] for
keeping my org-mode files in sync, for the central repository model, I
find that mercurial works better in that it's simpler to use.
However, mercurial and git are pretty much the same in this regard.

[*] Despite using mercurial for almost everything else, I use git and
    not mercurial for org-mode as mercurial is not available on my maemo
    Internet tablet....

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]