| ▲ | charcircuit 3 hours ago |
| Source control is not a backup. |
|
| ▲ | himata4113 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It kind of is, you push to a repository which is not on your computer. Force push protection stops you from rewriting history and default branch on github is protected by default and requires an option to be disabled (or well used to, I use gitea these days). |
| |
| ▲ | bawolff an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The backup part of that is that you are sending a copy of your code to a separate server (github). It has nothing to do with git. Making a copy on a separate server would still be a backup even if you weren't using git. Using git without pushing your repo somewhere else would not be a backup. | | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >you push to a repository which is not on your computer That is not a mandatory part of using source control. Modern source control can work entirely on your own computer. >Force push protection stops you from rewriting history This doesn't always exist and usually there are ways to disable it. | | |
| ▲ | himata4113 an hour ago | parent [-] | | restic/borg is not a backup application because you backup to a folder in the same directory called `.git`... doesn't sound right does it? git (and other source control systems) in every shape and form are a backup tool. In fact, a lot of people use git as a backup system for their OS configuration. | | |
| ▲ | bawolff an hour ago | parent [-] | | > restic/borg is not a backup application because you backup to a folder in the same directory called `.git`... doesn't sound right does it? It does sound right. Obviously the world isn't black and white, and whether something is a backup depends on what threats you are backing up against. Backing up in case of disk failure looks different then if you want your backup to survive a nuclear war. But ultimately yes, if you configure restic/borg to backup to a different directory on the same disk (and not even different access control), that is not a backup. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rirze an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's funny you're downvoted. I agree source control is not backup, because it implies having `git` is enough. It's not. Example: an Agent or process deleting your .git folder doesn't protect your code. |
| |
| ▲ | infinite_spin an hour ago | parent [-] | | Or if the AI agent decides "delete" means something much broader than just source, and includes other project resources, such as databases At the end of the day we have a developer injecting malicious instructions into their project, with the openly stated goal of causing data deletion, and the people supporting that effort are doing so because of their personal ideology. We have laws against this for a good reason. |
|
|
| ▲ | dymk 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| DVCS is a backup |
| |
| ▲ | charcircuit 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you make a git repository on your machine and then delete the entire directory it is in you can not recover it despite git being DVCS. If you have 2 forks of the repo stored on the same disc as the upstream repo and that disc dies, you lose everything. | | |
| ▲ | amingilani an hour ago | parent [-] | | You’re conflating offsite backups, a type of backup, with the class of backups. Backups can be on-site. Is it as durable? No. Is it a backup? Yes. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | tty456 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Orly? What is? |
| |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Making an actual copy of it that can be stored separately. Just tracking changes being made doesn't mean there is another copy of everything somewhere. The goal of backups is for the probability of destructions of different backups to not be correlated with each other. |
|
