Login | Register
My pages Projects Community openCollabNet

Discussions > users > Re: questions about "unversion" and "ignore"

fsvs
Discussion topic

Back to topic list

Re: questions about "unversion" and "ignore"

Author mmm4m5m
Full name Mmm Mmm
Date 2008-07-23 14:35:30 PDT
Message Hi Thomas,

Thank you. Your point of view is helpful. Maybe I have to re-think again.

... but as of now my little idea is...

1) I think that with more/better backups I will not be afraid to touch/crash my system - maybe this will make it more easy to learn

2) I wish FSVS to store binaries, mostly because of meta data (permissions/owner/t​ime/checksum) and to monitor all changes. I am not sure is it correct, but I think this could help against viruses/hacks (if you have such in linux world :) )

... Example: I just know there is 'iptables', Still I do not touch that part, I do not know where it is. Still I can't feel self confident as much as I was with windows.

The same wish was with windows - to know what is going on. Other way, you run some installer and you do not know anything anymore. "Installer" could be any virus who come into because Internet Explorer bugs (even without any efforts/errors from my side).

regards,
Plamen.


--- On Wed, 7/23/08, Thomas Harold <tgh at tgharold dot com> wrote:

> From: Thomas Harold <tgh at tgharold dot com>
> Subject: Re: questions about "unversion" and "ignore"
> To: users at fsvs dot tigris dot org
> Cc: "MMM MMM" <mmm4m5m at yahoo dot com>
> Date: Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 5:24 PM
> In general, what works for us on servers is to base the FSVS
> off the
> root of the server, and do a lot of ignores. We will
> typically not
> version anything that is either:
>
> - binary
>
> - configuration files for a non-critical service (like
> Gnome
> configuration files)
>
> - log files, or daily reports (like pre-genreated calamaris
> reports for
> squid)
>
> - stuff in /home
>
> On our CentOS 5.1 boxes, that results in (after 6-12 months
> of using
> FSVS) a repository size of only 351 MB. Our ignore list
> for a server is
> typically between 30 and 60 lines. As we find additional
> things that
> don't need to be versioned, it's easy to
> unversion/ignore them and not
> worry about the excess space in the repository from the old
> files.
>
> But again, this is a production server, not a desktop
> machine, and we
> would prefer to have a bit of over-kill in regards to what
> we keep track
> of. We've been tempted, at times, to also version
> control the binaries,
> but it would be better to simply pull those back off of
> backups.

« Previous message in topic | 4 of 11 | Next message in topic »

Messages

Show all messages in topic

questions about "unversion" and "ignore" mmm4m5m Mmm Mmm 2008-07-23 04:01:16 PDT
     Re: questions about "unversion" and "ignore" pmarek P.Marek 2008-07-23 06:07:08 PDT
         Re: questions about "unversion" and "ignore" Thomas Harold <tgh at tgharold dot com> Thomas Harold <tgh at tgharold dot com> 2008-07-23 07:24:18 PDT
             Re: questions about "unversion" and "ignore" mmm4m5m Mmm Mmm 2008-07-23 14:35:30 PDT
         Re: questions about "unversion" and "ignore" mmm4m5m Mmm Mmm 2008-07-23 14:21:49 PDT
             Re: questions about "unversion" and "ignore" pmarek P.Marek 2008-07-26 05:36:13 PDT
             Re: questions about "unversion" and "ignore" pmarek P.Marek 2008-08-23 10:56:12 PDT
         Re: questions about "unversion" and "ignore" mmm4m5m Mmm Mmm 2008-07-24 01:54:46 PDT
         Re: questions about "unversion" and "ignore" mmm4m5m Mmm Mmm 2008-07-24 02:55:34 PDT
         Re: questions about "unversion" and "ignore" mmm4m5m Mmm Mmm 2008-07-23 23:15:29 PDT
     Re: questions about "unversion" and "ignore" Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh at starjuice dot net> Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh at starjuice dot net> 2008-07-23 07:19:55 PDT
Messages per page: