[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 05/01/13 01:55, Kai Hendry wrote: > On 5 January 2013 03:01, Simon Avery <digdilem@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> You cannot seriously be arguing that git is simpler to use than a web >> form with a WYSIWYG editor. > Yes, for me it is. This is how I update / control all my Websites. I > like seeing the changelog. I prefer using vim. You're arguing at cross purposes here. Obviously, git is not easier to use than invoking $EDITOR on a plain HTML file or firing up your website authoring suite of choice and pointing it at your FTP root. Actually, I'm not sure what you're arguing about at all because they're not even tangentially related. You edit your HTML/PHP/CSS/whatever in your tool of choice (I use pure vi: vim, elvis and all 'advanced' clones are for wimps) and that tool can be anything, including a perfectly sensible WYSIWIG web-form based unit. Secondary to that, you, or a sysadmin with the relevant skills, manages the edits via a (distributed if necessary) version control system so that compliance standards can be met, arses can be covered and stupidity can be backed out. Simon is wrong because git is indeed very easy, especially with simple GUI tools (available on all major platforms). Kai is wrong because git is a versioning system, and shoehorning it into roles it's not supposed to fulfil is stupid (remember UNIX 101: small programs to do individual small tasks properly, chained/piped if required). You're both right because both approaches can work perfectly fine. You just need to decide what on earth you're disagreeing about first because for the life of me I can't figure it out. Use the right tool for the right job for god's sake (didn't we just have this discussion the other day?) >> Not having used Drupal for years, I was very pleasantly surprised how >> easy it was to add pages yesterday. There is nothing wrong with the >> framework of the site as it stands today, imo. I agree with this for what it's worth. Not broken, don't fix it. > What about getting a versioned data dump out? I guess it's a mysql dump? Sweet jesus christ, this is like vintage dump/restore... in 2013. Really? I was walking the new guy through old school stuff the other day, and showing him how you - used to - dump/restore UFS filesystems on a BSD box, poll through tar on multi-archive tapes, use custom commands in bacula or whatever to run pre-backup commands like mysqldump and he just looked at me like I was smoking crack. "But... but... but..." he said, "aren't we just snapshotting all this stuff on the SAN at block level via LVM/ZFS/WAFL like any non-idiot would? Even Windows can effortlessly handle SQL backups via VSS without difficulty!" So yeah, he was completely correct and I think he'll go far. I didn't want to break it to him that your average crappy VPS is hardly going to give you access to their backend infrastructure at the level where you can address LUNs directly, but it seemed a shame to dent his optimism. Next I'm going to teach him how NOT to use shitty VPS providers and get hypervisor access on rented metal without going full co-lo, and not the nested fake variety that makes everything break. But anyway, mysqldump. Ouch. Sometimes I have to check you guy's email headers just to make sure you're not Dennis Ritchie posting from 1969 or something. Regards -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq