Copying vs of cloning?

[Dustin Sallings]

   I do this and feel really comfortable with the results.  My backup  
machine is on another continent.

   Whenever I start a new project, I drop a bit of hgrc into a  
directory and run a shell script that builds a text and XML manifest.   
My update script grabs the manifest and clones anything I don't have  
locally.  After that, it goes through each project and looks for  
changes (incoming to a bundle and then applies the bundle).  I get an  
email whenever the output changes.



-- 
Dustin Sallings (mobile)

On Oct 5, 2007, at 8:30, "Dan North" <tastapod at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would think the safest way to keep a remote backup would be to  
> have a cron job on the remote machine that does a regular hg pull  
> from your central repository.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
>
> On 10/3/07, Jens Alfke <jens at mooseyard.com > wrote:
>
> On 3 Oct '07, at 9:59 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>
> > push, probably not. Local clone, yes it would (it just hardlinks by
> > default).
>
> True, but hard-linking isn't a backup :) and cloning isn't
> incremental. If using Hg for backups, you should use 'hg push' to a
> repository in a secure location. In that case, if your source repo
> gets corrupted that badly, the push will fail so the damage won't
> propagate to the backup, which is a definite benefit over a regular
> backup system!
>
> --Jens
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/attachments/20071005/656a84f8/attachment.htm