4 ms·
I think they shouldn't back up git objects individually because git handles the versioning information. Just compress the .git folder itself and back it up as a
by maalhamdan 6mo ago
I think they shouldn't back up git objects individually because git handles the versioning information. Just compress the .git folder itself and back it up as a single unit.
- pkaeding 6mo agoThis is a good point, but you might expect them to back up untracked and modified files in the backup, along with everything else on your filesystem.
- pixl97 6mo agoEh, you really shouldn't do that for any kind of file that acts like a (an impromptu) database. This is how you get corruption. Especially when change information can be split across more than one file.
- pkaeding 6mo agoSorry, what are you saying shouldn't be done? Backing up untracked/modified files in a bit repo? Or compressing the .git folder and backing it up as a unit?
- pixl97 6mo ago> Backing up untracked/modified files in a bit repo? This. It's best to do this in an atomic operation, such as a VSS style snapshot that then is consistent and done with no or paused operations on the files. Something like a zip is generally better because it takes less time on the file system than the upload process typically takes.
- pkaeding 6mo agoI see what you mean, but isn't this an issue with any filesystem backup tool? Or is there something about untracked files in a git workspace that is different, that I'm not seeing?
- willis936 6mo agoBetter yet, include dedpulication, incremental versioning, verification, and encryption. Wait, that's borg / restic. This is a joke, but honestly anyone here shouldn't be directly backing up their filesystems and should instead be using the right tool for the job. You'll make the world a more efficient place, have more robust and quicker to recover backups, and save some money along the way.