3 ms·
rsync needs constant attention not to send unwanted artifacts. Git based deployments aren't as fast, but much more robust and controllable with pull requests.
by nurettin 6y ago
rsync needs constant attention not to send unwanted artifacts. Git based deployments aren't as fast, but much more robust and controllable with pull requests.
Edit: of course this is for source code deployments, not binary output.
- marcosdumay 6y agoAll the binary deploys I created at work run over git. Honestly both of those are non-issues. Rsync is as much set once and forget as git, you'll need to script both and configure it there. And git slowness is a one time per deployment server issue. The one advantage of git is that it will keep an history of your deployments. Of course, CD tools do that too, but git is way more transparent and reusable. The one disadvantage is that it will make your deploy scripts more complex and stateful.
- mattbillenstein 6y agoYeah, with rsync you get both -- like I can deploy source code (python, et al) and stuff with outputs I don't want to track in git (webpack et al). I can essentially invoke whatever build steps I need to once on a build host - then let rsync handle moving all the changed things to my deployment environments.