On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:03 PM, @lbutlr <krem...@kreme.com> wrote: > > Oh, yes, that makes sense in the cases that I am using BBEdit to edit the > files, but it doesn’t account for the times I am sshed in to the machine. I > guess I was thinking of something a bit lower-level that would simply do the > versioning and such behind the scenes regardless of the tool used to edit the > files. >
Git is a source code revision control system. Just like CVS, Subversion, Mercurial, Perforce, and so on, it won't do things "automatically" behind the scenes. You most absolutely can use it to version /etc and other directories, but you're still going to have to stage your changes and make each commit. It would be editor-agnostic as you're desiring, but it won't be transparent/hands off. And it wouldn't be terribly valuable to version an area hands-off like that - you'd not have any metadata giving you context to your changes. The commit message you create for each commit give you context so you can understand why you made a particular change. If all you want is an automated backup, Timemachine, a cron-job'd rsync or other backup solution could be made to do that. And you could set them up to keep periodic snapshots (ie "versions"). Git is an excellent system for managing a directory of textual config files like /etc. But you need to understand what the tool does and how it works before embarking on such a use. - Steve -- This is the BBEdit Talk public discussion group. If you have a feature request or would like to report a problem, please email "supp...@barebones.com" rather than posting to the group. Follow @bbedit on Twitter: <http://www.twitter.com/bbedit> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BBEdit Talk" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bbedit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bbedit@googlegroups.com.
