[dfc]

I am surprised to see so many people mentioning dropbox and git. What does dropbox add that you don't get from git?[1] And/or with git and a decent backup system(tarsnap/duplicity/rsync)? It seems like a lot of extra overhead and data privacy concerns for little gain. What am I missing?

[1] I'm not saying this because git is the magic fairy dust. Replace git with hg, darcs etc.

[bradleyland]

I don't get it either. I've seen entire blog posts dedicated to using Dropbox as a git remote [1]. This is insanity! Git expects very fine grained control over the files in a git repository. I've also seen Dropbox generate "conflicted copies" for files that I don't have open and haven't modified. Literally I've sat and watched Dropbox notices come in about conflicted copies on files that are years old. I opened the folder containing the files and stared as the folder filled up with conflicted copies (which I promptly deleted).

There's no way I'd trust Dropbox to touch my git repos.

1: http://intermediaware.com/blog/how-to-use-dropbox-as-a-git-r...

[mdellabitta]

I use version control AND dropbox. Version control for... controlling versions, and Dropbox for sync and immediate recovery of all my work files should something bad happen.

Which did happen about two weeks ago. My laptop let the magic smoke out, and my deja dup backup wouldn't restore.

[jlgreco]

Presumably the difference is that you don't have to pull/push. Can't say doing that ever bothered me though.

Edit: actually it looks like most people use a bare repo on dropbox so you still push/pull from it. I don't understand the use-case at all then.

[beagle3]

If you have a bare repo in dropbox, you are essentially using dropbox servers as your git server; except it might silently drop stuff in all replicas on a merge conflict. Or whenever it fancies (dropbox had at least one all-replica data loss bug before). But in return, you don't have to do a 'git push' or 'git pull' or 'git-legit sync'.

Personally, I think it's stupid. If it's a non-secret project, host it on github and do a '[le]git sync' every few minutes (from a cronjob, if you insist).

If you don't want to expose it on github, why on earth do you trust dropbox to keep it?

[jlgreco]

Hell, doesn't bitbucket support git now? Just use them if your project is uber-secret.

[beagle3]

You're doing it wrong. If your project is uber-secret, you have to host it yourself - not under a big sign that says "come and try to get super secret source code out of me" just above the small "bitbucket" or "paid github" sign.

[jlgreco]

bitbucket has free private repos. If dropbox is private enough for you, bitbucket should be as well.

Obviously I just keep my private repos on my own server. Who doesn't have their own server these days anyway?

[ajasmin]

Not having to pull/push is also nice. If you just start editing a file and want to keep working on your laptop at the cafe without having to commit anything.

[UnoriginalGuy]

Is that a real question? Git is local only. It is not centralised.

Are you confusing Git with Github (service)?

[eclipxe]

There are plenty of remote Git hosts (Bitbucket, RepositoryHosting, etc)...

[UnoriginalGuy]

Indeed there are. People are using Dropbox as one of them.

But saying "why use Git with Dropbox it makes no sense?!" is actually wrong. It makes perfect sense. Git is not centralised. You cannot access your repository from a remote host.

Dropbox as well as Github and a number of alternative service allow that.

[npsimons]

Git is as centralized as you want it to be; look up "bare repos" sometime.

[dfc]

I asked a question about the merits of using dropbox and git and I specifically asked what I was moissing. How can a question "be wrong"? You have yet to answer what Dropbox+git offers that git+backup system does not.

I cannot access my repository from a remote host? I am guessing that you run windows, I don't. I can ssh into any machine that I need to access.

[UnoriginalGuy]

> How can a question "be wrong"?

The question was misinformation. Git within its self doesn't offer a centralised storage system.

The question implied it did. You didn't ask for a comparison, you implied there was no comparison to be made because Git already had it all.

> You have yet to answer what Dropbox+git offers that git+backup system does not.

Nothing. Same thing.

[dfc]

> The question was misinformation.

Please tell me where the "misinformation" is in the following question:

  What does dropbox add that you don't get from git?[1] And/or with git and a
  decent backup system(tarsnap/duplicity/rsync)? It seems like a lot of extra
  overhead and data privacy concerns for little gain. What am I missing?

And while we are at it please explain how I did not ask for a comparison?

As far as "git does not offer a centralized storage system" goes, Scott Chacon seems to disagree with you:

"If you have a small team or are already comfortable with a centralized workflow in your company or team, you can easily continue using that workflow with Git. Simply set up a single repository, and give everyone on your team push access[1]"

You did not mention if you are a windows user. I imagine that you are if you are not aware of the options to run your own git server. Of the many ways to set up a git server that are presented in Pro Git[2] my favorite is gitolite[3]. But there are lots of other ways, I recommend you take a look at the the options for yourself.

[1] http://git-scm.com/book/en/Distributed-Git-Distributed-Workf...

[2] http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-on-the-Server

[3] http://sitaramc.github.com/gitolite/g2/pictures.html

[dfc]

Yes it was a real question, one that you did not address at all. And what does "Git is local onl)" mean? If it was local only how did git replace bitkeeper?

I don't use github. I have a local server running gitolite that I use all the time. There is a cron script that pushes all of the repos to an offsite machine just in case. And this is in addition to normal backup system with duplicity.