3 ms·

Ask HN: Would anyone pay for automatic backups of their Git repos?

I've been contemplating the idea of building a little business around a system that automatically backs up a local git repository's working tree at regular intervals to a cloud repo. I would add a git command that would allow users to easily find and restore backups with no hassle. It might prevent people from losing work that hadn't yet been pushed or committed after an accidental deletion or a hard drive failure. Would anyone pay for this for themselves or their team? I've also thought that it might be interesting to present productivity analytics based upon these regular backups since the data could show more granular detail about working habits as compared to data based off of just commits. Hoping for some validation prior to spending more time building out the application, so any feedback is appreciated.

chmaynard 9y ago
Not me. But to paraphrase PT Barnum, there's a sucker born every minute.
- warpedjupiter 9y ago
  I really have no interest in building software for suckers though, I asked because I wanted to verify if the idea had real value to anyone :) I appreciate your feedback!
matthberg 9y ago
I think this is fundamentally missing the point of Git, which is to fill this role (which might require modifying user habits to prevent data loss as described here).
- warpedjupiter 9y ago
  I see your point and agree that this isn't necessarily a problem for developers that commit and push code really frequently (as we all know we should). From my experience, though, it isn't uncommon for developers to keep code in their working tree, on their local machine for days or longer before pushing it to a remote repo. I've seen multiple people lose a significant amount of work because they fall victim to the idea that "it won't happen to me", and I've typically seen their diligence with committing/pushing improve temporarily until the memory of their disaster fades. If you can successfully change habits to use Git more effectively to reduce this risk, then I think that is certainly a good alternative. I wonder if an inexpensive insurance policy wouldn't be better for many, though, especially since it could backup the working directory far more frequently than even the most careful Git users. Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate the response!
flukus 9y ago
Have you thought about inverting the idea, providing backups of cloud services? I see a lot of people/companies operating under the false assumption that they don't have to backup data that's in the cloud and typically it's a lot harder than backing up files on a hard drive.
- warpedjupiter 9y ago
  Thanks for your comment! Are you talking about backing up remote Git repos that are hosted on GitHub, Bitbucket, etc, or are you talking more generally about backing up any data that is hosted by a cloud service? If the former, then I'm not sure that I'd personally find the backup of actual data very useful since all users should have a local copy, but I can potentially see the use case for a redundant remote in the case that the service's servers are temporarily down and you don't want your team's workflow to be interrupted. If the latter, I think that there already some big players in that market and it might be difficult for a solo developer, like myself, to gain a foothold with a bootstrapped product.
  - flukus 9y ago
    I was thinking about both, but git repos specifically. Aside from the code itself github comes with a lot of stuff like issue management that only offers an API to access.

chmaynard 9y ago

Not me. But to paraphrase PT Barnum, there's a sucker born every minute.

warpedjupiter 9y ago
I really have no interest in building software for suckers though, I asked because I wanted to verify if the idea had real value to anyone :) I appreciate your feedback!

matthberg 9y ago

I think this is fundamentally missing the point of Git, which is to fill this role (which might require modifying user habits to prevent data loss as described here).

warpedjupiter 9y ago
I see your point and agree that this isn't necessarily a problem for developers that commit and push code really frequently (as we all know we should). From my experience, though, it isn't uncommon for developers to keep code in their working tree, on their local machine for days or longer before pushing it to a remote repo. I've seen multiple people lose a significant amount of work because they fall victim to the idea that "it won't happen to me", and I've typically seen their diligence with committing/pushing improve temporarily until the memory of their disaster fades. If you can successfully change habits to use Git more effectively to reduce this risk, then I think that is certainly a good alternative. I wonder if an inexpensive insurance policy wouldn't be better for many, though, especially since it could backup the working directory far more frequently than even the most careful Git users. Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate the response!

flukus 9y ago

Have you thought about inverting the idea, providing backups of cloud services? I see a lot of people/companies operating under the false assumption that they don't have to backup data that's in the cloud and typically it's a lot harder than backing up files on a hard drive.

warpedjupiter 9y ago
Thanks for your comment! Are you talking about backing up remote Git repos that are hosted on GitHub, Bitbucket, etc, or are you talking more generally about backing up any data that is hosted by a cloud service? If the former, then I'm not sure that I'd personally find the backup of actual data very useful since all users should have a local copy, but I can potentially see the use case for a redundant remote in the case that the service's servers are temporarily down and you don't want your team's workflow to be interrupted. If the latter, I think that there already some big players in that market and it might be difficult for a solo developer, like myself, to gain a foothold with a bootstrapped product.
- flukus 9y ago
  I was thinking about both, but git repos specifically. Aside from the code itself github comes with a lot of stuff like issue management that only offers an API to access.