bell notificationshomepageloginNewPostedit profile

Topic : Re: Does using version control system make backups unnecessary? Suppose I use Git, Subversion or any other version control system for managing my writing. So my texts are preserved together with change - selfpublishingguru.com

10% popularity

Yes, you still need backups.

However, the form that backup can take can vary.

Version Control might include it

If you are using git, then every time you "push" to an off-site repository, you have created a backup of your project in its entirety - including a catalog of your changes. This may be sufficient for your needs. In this case, you have two copies of your text: locally, every version, and in the off-site repository (such as BitBucket or github), every version.

If you're using Subversion, then only the central repository includes a catalog of your changes. If you are only interested in backing up the most recent version of your text, then every time you commit to Subversion, you are creating a backup. In this case, you have two copies of your text: locally, the current version, and in the Subversion repository, every version.
Automatic Online Backups

You have a few choices in this area, but the only one that I can recommend is Dropbox. With Dropbox, your files are stored locally, backed up to a central location, and synchronized with your other computers where you have Dropbox installed. This is good, because it means that if your computer is stolen or your hardware breaks, you can seamlessly pick up from your last place on an existing (or new) machine.

The disadvantage of using Dropbox is that there is potential for for someone to gain access to your account, delete all of your files, and for all of the copies of your work to be deleted upon the next synchronization. If you're worried about that possibility, I advise using at least one other backup method for important documents that are tracked by Dropbox.
Manual Online Backups

There are a number of options in this area. The advantage that they have over option 2 is that you are not regularly synchronizing from the server to your machine. However, they hold the disadvantage of being manual processes. These are similar to option 1, but if you use Subversion then you may wish to manually back up the central repository on a regular basis.
Local Backups

This boils down to backing up onto local media - most likely optical media (CDs, DVDs) or a different hard drive (most likely an external hard drive or flash drive). These have the advantage of not requiring a network connection to backup or restore. There are two problems with this method:

The backup is local. In the event of a fire or other disaster, your work will be lost.
The backup media can fail. This is particularly of concern with external hard drives and flash drives, as most likely all of your backups will be stored on one device. In the event that your external drive and your local hard drive both lose data at the same time, you're completely out of luck (unless you have a remote backup).

Personally, I recommend using the following solution:

Store your files in a Dropbox synched folder.
Version control your files with git.
Push your local repository after each work session (or more often) to a BitBucket hosted repository.
Monthly or more often, back up your files locally, preferably on an external hard drive or flash drive.


Load Full (0)

Login to follow topic

More posts by @Murphy332

0 Comments

Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best

Back to top