Yeah I wouldn't use source control for backups. I remember some years ago I was using svn for my graphics... Some of the photoshop files were a few hundred meg in size (some as much as a gig) and I discovered svn hides all this stuff in hidden .svn folders. I ran out of space so fast I abandoned this idea.
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 11:33 AM, mike smith <meski...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Greg Keogh <g...@mira.net> wrote: >> >> >If there's a hole in my argument I need to know. >> >> >> >> Well, it seems clear to me that a version control system is written >> specifically for that purpose, and a backup system for that specific purpose >> (unless the designers and authors of the system have made some political >> statement about overlapping intentions). > > Well, a VCS is supposed to be a superset of a backup. > >> >> >> >> I’m sure the version software authors try to make the version system as >> robust as possible, but I did experience a serious corruption of Source Safe >> a few years ago and we never managed to get some archived old software >> versions out of it. For that reason I don’t consider a version system any >> kind of backup at all. At that previous job they were backing up the version >> backing files to tape, but it was clear that they had been backing up >> corrupt version files for a year or so. >> >> >> >> There’s the hole. >> >> > > That's a hole in SourceSafe. I acknowledge that sourcesafe isn't safe. > (and I think MS do, as well, for large implementations) Another 'hole' is > that files that SVN don't 'understand' get a complete new file for every > revision, rather than a diff. > -- > Meski > > "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll > get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills >
