5 ms·
Well then you are already writing in plain text. Why not use git for committing revisions rather than making backup copies on the file system?
by dustfinger 7y ago
Well then you are already writing in plain text. Why not use git for committing revisions rather than making backup copies on the file system?
- mirimir 7y agoIt is an interesting idea. But I'm more comfortable with stuff staying local, unless I explicitly put it online.
- bocklund 7y agogit is a local program that doesn’t require that you put anything online. It sounds like you might be unfamiliar with it and I suggest that you check it out - it might be just what you’re looking for!
- mirimir 7y agoOK, right. I jumped to GitHub. But if it's local, what's the advantage vs saving as a file? Simple revision history management?
- mkl 7y agoYes, tracking changes. If something gets messed up, by a mistake or by a program trashing it, you can roll back to an earlier version. You also get tagging, to mark particular versions, and none of this clutters up the file system like multiple copies do, as it's hiding in a hidden folder. I use git for any important private projects, and don't often use it online.
- ska 7y agoAlso less simple revision history. For some long lived documents I keep a "release branch" and make branches for playing around. If a direction or section isn't fruitful I can leave it on a branch without fear of losing "something good", and go back to mainline. I can also tag shared/published versions easily. Oh and push a backup to another machine easily or automatically.
- rout39574 7y ago'Git' doesn't necessarily imply 'github'. You can make a local repo, and get all the benefits of VC without any necessary exposure.
- w_t_payne 7y agoI've got a script that monitors the disk for changes and then automagically commits to git. :-)