recommendations for version controlling /etc on a new f12 box?

[Todd Zullinger]

Bill Davidsen wrote:
> I'm a great believer in RCS for this:
> - all on the machine, no need to set up servers

Git (and most of the other distributed VCS') doesn't require any
server setup.  It also doesn't litter your directories with RCS dirs
nor make you manually manage every damn file.  RCS was nice in the
80's, but it is surely showing it's age now. :)

Tools like git are also _much_ more efficient with storage space, so
you waste a lot less disk than if you used RCS.

> - easy to roll back if needed

As is git --reset.

> - easy to embed version, date, etc, in comments
>    to be sure you have what you think you do.
> - right capability where multiple admins are not changing
>    things all the time. Or at least the same things.
> - if you use the comments capability, leaves a good audit trail.

Of course, git log does this quite nicely as well, and can capably
show you changes that encompass multiple files or file moves/renames
easier than RCS (similarly for mercurial and bzr).

> Tools intended to solve multi-user development are more complex than
> they need to be. CVS, git, yady, yada, yada.

To each their own I suppose.  But anyone who hasn't already invested
time learning a version control system would be incredibly remiss IMO
if they chose RCS over Git (or any of the distributed tools).

I started with RCS a long time ago and I'll be damned if I ever use it
again willingly. ;)

-- 
Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Everyone needs to believe in something. I believe I'll have another
beer.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100220/3e617825/attachment.bin