Re: [tlug] search for encrypted information exchange

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Curt Sampson writes:
 > On 2009-08-25 18:04 +0900 (Tue), Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > 
 > > svn commit is equivalent to git push, requiring equal amounts of
 > > discipline.
 > 
 > Bzzt! Thank you for playing.
 > 
 > The git process has more steps that need to be performed manually,
 > (commit, pull, push vs. just commit),

Git does have a lot of steps that *can* be performed manually, indeed.
One would almost think that you'd never heard of "shell functions"
though.

 > and many more opportunities for silent errors (such as pushing to
 > the wrong repo).
 > 
 > From your statement, I'd almost thing you hadn't used subversion.

As far as I'm concerned, svn is a great way to update workspaces for
projects I don't commit to.  Always been that way, and I hope it
doesn't change. ;-)  But I've used CVS, which is the same thing for
this purpose, as the UIs are the same by design and all the
interesting problems for this thread already arise in a single-file
project, so atomicity isn't an issue.

 > > Again, the git UI encourages more robust, more secure practice.
 > 
 > In this case, not, I think; given the situation, files will always
 > completely conflict, and thus subversion will always leave you with
 > copies of both files, so that's not an issue.

OK, that does sound right.

 > Yes, I can think of dozens of ways to spend dozens of hours setting up
 > more things to help get me out of complex situations of my own creation.
 > That doesn't mean I actually want to spend the time doing that, rather
 > than, say, working on something that generates revenue.

That is no answer, my friend.  You can always say that whenever you
don't feel like changing your current workflow.  In this case, most
any live CD has everything you need to set up, so I would guess it
would take me at most a day's work, and you probably would be able to
do it in half the time.