Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Dropbox is not a tool for developers

stupidiswinning.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 73 posts

Re: Dropbox is not a tool for developers

#61

Post by lojack »

georgemcbay wrote: post #52
lojack wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may work for the lone developer, but what happens when you're on a team with shared Dropbox folders, all working on the same code base concurrently. I understand your reasoning, and I'm not trying to say you are incorrect in doing this as it's a very legitimate use case. It is, however, important to understand that using Dropbox in this way, in the context of syncing the git repo for teams, is a step backwards.

It makes no difference if I'm working alone or on a team. Syncing locally changes nothing about my source code control usage. I'm still pushing my changes into a shared repo (on a remote server) when it is time to do that, but since I'm syncing locally (including my .git directory usually) I can push from any one of three different machines, whichever I happen to be working on when it is time to do the push.

I understand this, which is why I specifically said it wasn't wrong. Just saying that serious issues could arise when a less experienced developer shares their Dropbox folder and others treat that folder as their own clone of the repository. This should never happen because we know better, but the realist in me says its inevitably going to happen at some point.

Re: Dropbox is not a tool for developers

#62

Post by beagle3 »

jlgreco wrote: post #17
dfc wrote: post #13

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.

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.

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?

Re: Dropbox is not a tool for developers

#63

Post by georgemcbay »

lojack wrote: post #61
georgemcbay wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes no difference if I'm working alone or on a team. Syncing locally changes nothing about my source code control usage. I'm still pushing my changes into a shared repo (on a remote server) when it is time to do that, but since I'm syncing locally (including my .git directory usually) I can push from any one of three different machines, whichever I happen to be working on when it is time to do the push.

I understand this, which is why I specifically said it wasn't wrong. Just saying that serious issues could arise when a less experienced developer shares their Dropbox folder and others treat that folder as their own clone of the repository. This should never happen because we know better, but the realist in me says its inevitably going to happen at some point.

Yeah that's a potential problem if people are doing that. I certainly don't recommend sharing a repo directory among multiple people via Dropbox.

I don't share my sync folders publicly at all, they exist only for my own convenience when it comes to switching between different systems as needed.

Re: Dropbox is not a tool for developers

#64

Post by dfc »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #28
dfc wrote: post #13

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.

Is that a real question? Git is local only. It is not centralised. Are you confusing Git with Github (service)?

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.

Re: Dropbox is not a tool for developers

#66

Post by dfc »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #34
eclipxe wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

Re: Dropbox is not a tool for developers

#67

Post by UnoriginalGuy »

dfc wrote: post #66
UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

> 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.

Re: Dropbox is not a tool for developers

#68

Post by jlgreco »

beagle3 wrote: post #62
jlgreco wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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

Re: Dropbox is not a tool for developers

#69

Post by beagle3 »

jlgreco wrote: post #68
beagle3 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

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.

Re: Dropbox is not a tool for developers

#70

Post by dfc »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #67
dfc wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

> 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

Post reply on HN