On 07/02/2015 14:56, Tim Watts wrote:
On 07/02/15 14:45, Theo Markettos wrote:
In uk.d-i-y Tim Watts wrote:
On 06/02/15 23:11, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Personally: push the question up a layer by sticking everything that I
want to be available everywhere in git, and sync when opportunities
arise.

But it is an interesting idea for small files.

Not sure about large binaries though...

The problem with git is it's all or nothing. If you put everything in
one
repo then you get the whole lot, you can't be selective. So it means the
kitchen PC has to get the bank statements as well as the recipes, or
whatever it may be. It also means you have to update everything,
which is
annoying when you're on a slow/metered link.

If you start partitioning into multiple repos then you end up with
dozens of
repos to (forget to) sync, and you can't easily move things between
repos.

Subversion allows partial checkouts, but doesn't work offline. I haven't
yet found a distributed VCS that works sensibly in this situation.
Though I haven't explored some of the options mentioned he
http://blogs.atlassian.com/2014/05/h...ositories-git/
(git-annex looks interesting)

Theo


Yep - this is definitely taking the wrong direction.

The right direction is a well designed network protocol for handling
"remote storage". Google managed it, so did Dropbox.

Now I really must go test one of the opensource systems and see if any
of them come close. I was hoping someone might already have tried one,
but evidently not...

I'm looking forward to some little NAS boxes in the future that can be
"private dropbox type servers" so all your pads and phones and
chromebooks can tap into your own private store.


Last time I checked Google Drive couldn't handle nested folders