Gerhard wrote regarding 'Re: [PIC] CVS for PIC development' on Mon, Jan 16 at 15:39:
> Danny Sauer wrote:
> 
> > Set up another machine to check the root out periodically and you have an
> > automatic backup (albeit w/ lost version info).
> 
> Now why would you do /that/? Can't you back up the repository itself, with
> all version info? I really would not want to lose all of that... That's why
> I back up my cvsnt /repository/, not a shadow or sandbox.

Well, in the case of subversion, you have all of the history
information checked out in the local repository.  SVN trades some
local disk space for a big reduction in network bandwidth, which is
part of the reason it feels significantly faster.  So with SVN it
doesn't *really* matter - I'm pretty sure you can reconstruct a
repository from any local copy therof.

In a previous life, I managed some web content in CVS.  There were two
web servers - the development server which held a checked-out version
of the code, and a public server (actually two behind a load-balancing
proxy, technically) which had whatever was tagged as stable (using
branches, IIRC).  The version information wasn't really important, as
developers would make a copy to mess with and when their local version
was OK they'd check it back into CVS.  The hooks on the CVS server
would push the updated file up to the production server when anything
was checked in.  So that was automatic, and didn't take a lot of
bandwidth - it had a side effect of making a full curent backup of the
repositiory on two machines.  Sure, version info would have been lost,
but we were using CVS more for the ability to keep multiple people's
work in sync and becuase it was a convenient way to manage stable v/s
unstable site uploading - the version info didn't matter and would
have been wasted space in that admittedly atypical situation. :)

--Danny
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist