Re: In defense of Customize [was: Trying to right-align my window on startup]

[Phillip Lord]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>> I prefer using DVCS to sync up my files.  Started doing that when CVS
>>> acquired its "remote access" functionality.
>> I tried that, but I dislike the explicit commit
>
> For sync purpose, I have a script which does "commit+merge".
> It's really the same as unison, except I have a history of changes, and
> better conflict resolution.  Commits don't have any logical meaning, nor
> "commit log" message in that case.

That's an interesting idea, and I hadn't thought of it. In general, I am
not too worried about conflict resolution, since my work practices are
aimed at not getting conflicts. So, for example, I unison my ~/Mail and
use nnml. A DVCS resolution is not going to help there because it is the
conflict is between files not inside the content of files.

One day I need to write a Gnus backend which doesn't use sequential file
numbers (perhaps a time stamp would work) -- these would then merge
cleanly automatically when read at both ends. I suspect "one day" is
never going to happen.

I also sync quite large binary files (music, photos and occasionally
isos). DVCS I think wouldn't not be ideal here, since you'd get a 2x
increase in size, and deletion wouldn't decrease that.

>> I actually [sync?] many of my DVCS working repos between machines;
>
> For things where I use DVCS for non-sync purpose, I typically use
> a separate "work-mess" branch which I sync via "commit+merge" as above
> without caring about commit messages or commit granularity.  And when
> the work is ready, I move it manually onto a real branch where I "commit
> properly".

Good idea also!

Phil