3 ms·
I'm tempted to write an article: Who Needs ZFS When You Got Git, but the title IS the article. Don't get me wrong, I looove ZFS, and from a quick scan this art
by linsomniac 10y ago
I'm tempted to write an article: Who Needs ZFS When You Got Git, but the title IS the article.
Don't get me wrong, I looove ZFS, and from a quick scan this article looks like a good intro to ZFS, particularly for someone familiar with git.
- kennywinker 10y agoAuthor is not actually suggesting replacing your version control with ZFS. From the first paragraph: > Of course, I'm not seriously suggesting you'd ditch a "proper" version control system, but it gives a good sense of what's possible at the file system level.
- jaredklewis 10y agoI like how he uses of course . "Of course," the title of this article is misleading. The article is about something different, but this was the most clicky baity combination of words including "git" and "zfs."
- kennywinker 10y agoClickbait? Yes. Interesting article? also yes. The problem with clickbait is it's often used to bait you into reading BAD content or content irrelevant to your interests. Clickbait + good/related content is just clever marketing.
- mikestew 10y agoSo the title is click-bait, then? I almost read the article, but in the 342 milliseconds between thinking that and reaching for the mouse, I came up with three reasons the topic alluded to in the title would be a dumb idea. And it turns out that's not what the article is about anyway.
- kennywinker 10y agoGood work, you avoided learning a thing! :hooray emoji:
- ryao 10y agoWhen KDE's git repositories had been corrupted, one server being out of sync was the only thing that saved it. ZFS could have saved it and as far as I know, one mirror administrator is using ZFS to protect KDE's git repositories against recurrences. ZFS and git are complementary technologies. One does not replace the other.