Hey guys,

 

I develop Wordpress sites quite a bit and am constantly moving the theme from my laptop to desktop and vice versa so that i can carry on working at the different computer.

 

I was wondering if i can use GitHub to send my latest work to a repository and then download it again on the other computer from the terminal with a simple command.

 

I dont use GitHub very much at all so i dont know a lot about its ins an outs, but can this be done?

 

Thanks again

You could do that sure, or what you could do is use dropbox instead which will update files automatically without having to commit files to a repo and then update on the new machine

I used a similar method to what this blog post describes, for a while. Now I use a different, longer method because I use Dropbox for other reasons (I've wormed myself 77.9GB free space?!).

 

It's great if you don't need Dropbox for anything but websites: http://www.pmkelly.com/2012/07/sync-xampp-dropbox/

Edited January 3, 201313 yr by andyl

You can just separate different folders for dropbox. I use dropbox for websites and any other files. All you need to do is set the document root to match the dropbox directory

Indeed, the problem was I wanted websites on my laptop that weren't on my desktop and vice-versa. I used the "don't sync this folder" in Dropbox, but it always ends up finding itself on there one way or another due to my own ways of working. I've now set things up a bit differently.

I just recently started using a raspberry pi with GIT on it as my repository. Once you have GIT you can automate your environments using Phing.

Thanks for the help guys. I think that dropbox is the way to go for me, i've started using a folder in dropbox as a place to store all the wordpress sites.

 

Does anyone know where i can find the mysql files with xampp or ampps so i can link them to the correct folder too? its all working at the moment except the mysql part.

Doing that is highly discouraged to be honest. Since databases can change rapidly, it's hard to do that. What is recommended is to just use a remote server for DB connections - that's what I do anyway

The advice you have received here is atrocious.

 

Using dropbox for version control/code syncing is absolutely stupid when git/mercurial are FAR superior options.

 

Look at some of the stuff you can't do with dropbox, that is integral to git:

 

Can you revert to previous versions of your code? Yes with git, no with dropbox

Can you sync your work with other people easily, in a way that will ensure your changes do not conflict with other peoples changes? Yes with git, no with dropbox

Can you see a full history of every commit, seeing on a line per line basis what changed, who it was changed by any when it was changed? Yes with git, no with dropbox.

Can you branch your code to work on seperate features or bugfixes and then easily merge your branch into your main development branch with minimul fuss? Yes with git, no with dropbox

 

Here's another scenario: let's say you're working on a web application. Say your last update to the live site whent live a month ago. Since then, you've been working on a new feature, but your code isn't quite ready for production yet. Suddenly, your boss comes in and asks you to put that work on hold and to add a new report to the site. The problem is that the code you've been working on is half finished, and if you want to update the reports, it'll involve uploading this new, unfinished code to the live site. So what do you do? The wrong answer is to hack it so that you're hiding changes by commenting out hundreds of lines of code and stuff like that - the correct solution is this:

 

Update your local repo to the last version of your code that has gone live.

Create a new branch at this point in your code

Create the new report your boss wants (this will mean ALL of your other changes over the last month are not in this branch, but the new report is)

Send the update to the live server and update the live application - this will mean your boss gets his new report, and NONE of your new, half finished features will appear anywhere

Then merge this branch with your development branch with all your extra work

This will mean your development branch now has the new reports + all your extra work

Continue working on the extra stuff until it's done. When this goes live, it will have all your new features + the new reports

 

Try doing that in dropbox. You can't.

 

Dropbox is a ridiculous solution to this problem when something like git exists. Learn git and don't use dropbox for anything like this at all.

Edited January 12, 201313 yr by palko

Can you revert to previous versions of your code? Yes with git, no with dropbox

Actually yes you can. The OP wasn't asking for a version control system to work in a team, they were asking for a simple solution to sync files between two machines to continue development. The OP also never asked for a solution to branch off and make changes then merge back in the changes to an existing project. The only 'ridiculous' thing here is how 'atrocious' your literary skills are when it comes to reading what someone wants. Everything in your list of 'Can you...' the OP's not asked for

Edited January 12, 201313 yr by Jay Gilford

Actually yes you can. The OP wasn't asking for a version control system to work in a team, they were asking for a simple solution to sync files between two machines to continue development. The OP also never asked for a solution to branch off and make changes then merge back in the changes to an existing project. The only 'ridiculous' thing here is how 'atrocious' your literary skills are when it comes to reading what someone wants. Everything in your list of 'Can you...' the OP's not asked for

 

You are offering a demonstrably inferior solution to a problem that has already been solved.

 

Even just for syncing between two machines, git is better than dropbox. Dropbox is not designed for handling code projects. GIt does everything dropbox can do for this purpose, but then does 100 times better.

 

Your solution is awful and he should disregard it. Don't be so lazy and figure out how to use git.

Edited January 12, 201313 yr by palko

You're demonstrating an overly complex solution to a simple request. The OP want's one thing. Syncing files between two machines. Dropbox is PERFECT for this. How you can say Git does it 100 times better I don't know. As for the solution being awful - that's your opinion. You're wrong, but you are entitled to it. Oh, and I'm well aware of Git thanks. I didn't say I don't know how to use it, I said that for syncing between two machines Dropbox works well. Stop assuming and get your head out of your arse

You're demonstrating an overly complex solution to a simple request. The OP want's one thing. Syncing files between two machines. Dropbox is PERFECT for this. How you can say Git does it 100 times better I don't know. As for the solution being awful - that's your opinion. You're wrong, but you are entitled to it. Oh, and I'm well aware of Git thanks. I didn't say I don't know how to use it, I said that for syncing between two machines Dropbox works well. Stop assuming and get your head out of your arse

 

Using git is in NO WAY complex. The only vague complexity would stem from having never used it before. Once you know how to use it, it's EASY to use and takes seconds to implement on any project.

 

What I have said is absolutely accurate - dropbox is inferior to using proper version control like git in every single way. Show me a SINGLE advantage to using dropbox over git for this purpose?

 

I stated a bunch of reasons as to why git is better above.

 

Here's another one - deployment. Using your method, I take it in order to update your site you ftp (ugh) from dropbox and have to remember each file that has been changed for each update, yeah?

 

Using git, I can type one command and update everything instantly on my server. I can revert changes if something went wrong directly on the server in a flash again.

 

I have a FULL history of everything that changed. Something broke? Ok, go back and see what you did. You want to know how a single file has changed over time, no problem. Want to have someone else join your project but don't know whether their code will work? Not a problem - give them a repo and try out their changes as they push them. If they don't work you can scrap them - if they do, then great.

 

There is literally no reason at all to use dropbox over git for this purpose. I bet you can't give me a single advantage. Saying "it's easier" is not true at all - once you understand the concepts behind git, it's absolutely simple to use.

 

You're just lazy and you're giving terrible advice.

Edited January 12, 201313 yr by palko

Using git is in NO WAY complex. The only vague complexity would stem from having never used it before. Once you know how to use it, it's EASY to use and takes seconds to implement on any project.

 

 

What I have said is absolutely accurate

Except for the bit on dropbox not allowing reverts of course - oh and this statement

- dropbox is inferior to using proper version control like git in every single way. Show me a SINGLE advantage to using dropbox over git for this purpose?

Yes it's inferior for VERSION CONTROL since it's not a version control system. Stop being lazy yourself and read the OP's question. Where does it ask for any of the features you listed? All the OP want's is to continue development between two machines. Oh, and Dropbox is superior to git in this instance since it doesn't require any user interaction as files are modified since they sync on the fly

I stated a bunch of reasons as to why git is better above.

All of which the OP didn't ask for

Here's another one - deployment. Using your method, I take it in order to update your site you ftp (ugh) from dropbox and have to remember each file that has been changed for each update, yeah?

Where did the OP ask for this? Oh that's right they didn't

Using git, I can type one command and update everything instantly on my server. I can revert changes if something went wrong directly on the server in a flash again.

 

I have a FULL history of everything that changed. Something broke? Ok, go back and see what you did. You want to know how a single file has changed over time, no problem. Want to have someone else join your project but don't know whether their code will work? Not a problem - give them a repo and try out their changes as they push them. If they don't work you can scrap them - if they do, then great.

There's a whole lot of what if's here. The easiest way to put this is that it's fine for your scenario but the OP's not asked for any of this. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work for them

There is literally no reason at all to use dropbox over git for this purpose. I bet you can't give me a single advantage. Saying "it easier" is not true at all - once you understand the concepts behind git, it's absolutely simple to use.

See above...git is not easier to sync than dropbox and if you think it is you're too lazy to work out how it works

 

You're just lazy and you're giving terrible advice.

Thanks, I pride myself on it

The fact is that git solves the original poster's problems AND provides a tonne of extra features, some of which are invaluable.

 

I can't comprehend how anybody can work on a programming project in the year 2013 without using version control.

 

Number one thing I do when I start any project is create a repo. It's literally the very first thing you should be doing on every project, with no exceptions.

 

Except for the bit on dropbox not allowing reverts of course - oh and this statement

 

Yes it's inferior for VERSION CONTROL since it's not a version control system. Stop being lazy yourself and read the OP's question. Where does it ask for any of the features you listed? All the OP want's is to continue development between two machines. Oh, and Dropbox is superior to git in this instance since it doesn't require any user interaction as files are modified since they sync on the fly

 

All of which the OP didn't ask for

 

Where did the OP ask for this? Oh that's right they didn't

 

There's a whole lot of what if's here. The easiest way to put this is that it's fine for your scenario but the OP's not asked for any of this. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it will work for them

 

See above...git is not easier to sync than dropbox and if you think it is you're too lazy to work out how it works

Thanks, I pride myself on it

It does solve it sure, but what you're missing is the whole point of suggesting dropbox. Dropbox is easier for syncing. That is the fact of the matter here. All of the other features you've mentioned are beneficial sure - I know because I work on a few opensource projects on github and googlecode and know the benefits of them but what the op asked for git doesn't provide any better solution to the problem. Dropbox syncs all by itself between machines without any commands being run by the user. You should also realise that the OP doesn't use git and as such would need to learn how to do so taking more time. Before you start throwing your toys out of your pram about it, yes I know it's not that difficult to get to grips with but git will be slower than dropbox to sync between machines constantly

No, sorry. You should realise that offering half baked solutions to problems that have already been brilliantly solved is not good form.

 

There is no benefit to using dropbox over git other than sheer lazyness. That's literally the only benefit.

 

Git solves the original problem + adds a complete version control system that the original poster will come to rely on very quickly. The capacity to be able to turn back revisions and have a full history of all changes + being able to branch and merge is invaluable, will work on any project no matter the language, and will also put you in good stead for most professional enviroments (because git/mercurial are pretty much the industry standards these days).

 

You didn't even get to my point about deployment. Any supposed benefit you get from the drag and drop functionality of dropbox (which isn't really an advantage at all btw) is lost completely when you've done changes to 30 files and have to remember each one individually when you go to deploy the update.

 

What do I do to update? Login to the server and type two commands (I can do it in one command if I just want to go live with the update straight away) - this will work out all of the 30 files changed and sync them all. I don't have to remember anything.

 

Sorry, no. Dropbox is inferior to using real version control.

 

Dropbox is a great tool, but it's not designed for this purpose, and the moment you start using proper tools you see why.

 

To the original poster: if you'd like to learn some of the basics of git (it's well worth your time as you'll be able to use this tool in every project you make from now on), check out the helpful tutorial on github (remember github and git are not the same thing - you can use git without github if you want): http://learn.github.com/p/intro.html

It does solve it sure, but what you're missing is the whole point of suggesting dropbox. Dropbox is easier for syncing. That is the fact of the matter here. All of the other features you've mentioned are beneficial sure - I know because I work on a few opensource projects on github and googlecode and know the benefits of them but what the op asked for git doesn't provide any better solution to the problem. Dropbox syncs all by itself between machines without any commands being run by the user. You should also realise that the OP doesn't use git and as such would need to learn how to do so taking more time. Before you start throwing your toys out of your pram about it, yes I know it's not that difficult to get to grips with but git will be slower than dropbox to sync between machines constantly

It's not a 'half baked solution'. Dropbox is made for syncing files between different locations and does it well. Git does this sure, but you still need to commit every time you make changes. Dropbox will find your changes as they're made, add files as they're made and delete too. There's no 'drag and drop' functionality - it does it by itself. This sounds like you've not even used Dropbox to be honest

 

Sorry, no. Dropbox is inferior to using real version control.

Right, but the OP doesn't want version control

Dropbox is a great tool, but it's not designed for this purpose, and the moment you start using proper tools you see why.

This makes no sense. Dropbox is a great tool....but it's of no use? Either it's a great syncing tool or it isn't and if it is then you've just completely confirmed the fact that it is ideal for the OP's needs

It's not a 'half baked solution'. Dropbox is made for syncing files between different locations and does it well. Git does this sure, but you still need to commit every time you make changes. Dropbox will find your changes as they're made, add files as they're made and delete too. There's no 'drag and drop' functionality - it does it by itself. This sounds like you've not even used Dropbox to be honest

 

Right, but the OP doesn't want version control

This makes no sense. Dropbox is a great tool....but it's of no use? Either it's a great syncing tool or it isn't and if it is then you've just completely confirmed the fact that it is ideal for the OP's needs

 

Dropbox is a great tool for syncing things like word documents and pdf files, images and music and stuff like that. Not for programming projects.

 

And saying "but the OP doesn't want version control" is silly. Everyone should use version control and should be encouraged to use version control.

 

Give me one good reason why you wouldn't want to use version control in a project? Of course he should be encouraged to use version control.

Git does this sure, but you still need to commit every time you make changes. Dropbox will find your changes as they're made, add files as they're made and delete too.

 

This is why I'm saying your argument is lazyness - so what if you have to commit each time? It makes sense to have to commit, because you might consider a bunch of related changes to be a single commit - this makes sense. We're talking about two commands here btw - commit and push, that's all. It takes like 10 seconds to do, so you're really not saving any time at all.

 

Any time you save (which will be literally just seconds anyway) will be instantly lost when you need to revert changes or when you come to deploy. For the third time I'll mention deployment, because you've ignored it twice already - what speed benefit do you get if you've made changes over the course of say a couple of weeks to say 50 files - what, you then have to remember each individual file and upload them one at a time? Or do you seriously just upload every single file to your live site each time you want to do an update?

 

Using git/mercurial, I can update my site in seconds - even if I'm updating it with changes to 50 files made over 2 weeks.

 

And saying he doesn't want version control is silly. Of course everyone wants version control - he just needs to understand what massive benefits it will give to him. Honestly, give me ONE reason as to why you wouldn't want to use version control in a project?

 

Git provides the best solution from every angle.

 

 

*Edit: And something I should have mentioned - you don't have to commit each time you make a save to a file or anything like that. You do a commit whenever you want to take a 'snapshot' of your current project. So you can work all day if you want and only do a single commit. Personally, I tend to commit fairly often, so in a single day I may have 10-15 commits, depending on what I'm doing.

Edited January 12, 201313 yr by palko

OK you say I've ignored the deployment side of this - what benefit does git have if the OP doesn't have SSH access to the server in question? Or git isn't installed? There's going to be no point to it. Not everyone has a VPS/Dedicated server where they can tinker with the workings of it.

 

Also, what if you forget to commit and push, then go to your second location and realise you've not done so? You've then not got the files to work with. You keep mentioning laziness and what you see as laziness I see as being more efficient. I don't need to worry about syncing files because it all gets done and I know it's happening. I don't worry about forgetting what's done and what isn't - it all gets done as soon as the file is saved

 

Also, I wouldn't want to be committing work just because I was going to a different location because I'd end up with a load of commits that are going to be garbage due to the file being incomplete or has bugs.

Edited January 12, 201313 yr by Jay Gilford

OK you say I've ignored the deployment side of this - what benefit does git have if the OP doesn't have SSH access to the server in question? Or git isn't installed? There's going to be no point to it. Not everyone has a VPS/Dedicated server where they can tinker with the workings of it.

 

Also, what if you forget to commit and push, then go to your second location and realise you've not done so? You've then not got the files to work with You keep mentioning laziness and what you see as laziness I see as being more efficient. I don't need to worry about syncing files because it all gets done and I know it's happening. I don't worry about forgetting what's done and what isn't - it all gets done as soon as the file is saved

 

Also, I wouldn't want to be committing work just because I was going to a different location because I'd end up with a load of commits that are going to be garbage due to the file being incomplete or has bugs.

 

From what you've said, it sounds like you're not very experienced with version control.

 

If you forget to push your changes then that's your fault. This isn't something that should happen often though, because commits and pushes just become part of your normal flow.

 

In terms of commiting things that are incomplete - well yeah, I do this all the time. Most of my commits represent works in progress. It might take me 200 commits to finish a working module, and there's nothing wrong with that. What's the issue here?

 

In terms of not having ssh access (which to be fair, I'm used to - I've not used a control panel in 4/5 years now), I know there are ways around this actually. There are ftp plugins for git. I personally think using ftp is dirty and tacky, but if you absolutely have to, there's stuff like this: https://github.com/resmo/git-ftp

 

At least that will stop you from having to remember what you changed. It's not ideal, but it's still a lot better than having to track stuff or upload everything each time.

 

I just can't fathom why anyone would want to work without version control - and worse, actually argue that this is better! It's not better.

 

If something breaks, I can revert instantly. I can revert back to my code last tuesday if I want. I can even pull out individual files from last tuesday and merge them back into the project today, without reverting anything else.

 

I can see a line by line changeset of each that changed. I can work with other people, even on the same file at the same time, and it will STILL work. I can do bug fixes to the live site while working on different modules in parallel, and all of this I can do because I took the time out to learn a proper tool.

 

The OP will see the benefit of using proper version control the first time he messes something up and can't quite figure out the issue. Using git - no panic, revert back to a working version and stick that back on the live site, then go through your changes and figure out what went wrong.

 

Writing code without version control is like skydiving without a parachute.

 

Effectively, you're hurtling to the ground at a hundred miles an hour with a tissue instead of a parachute, and all the while you're laughing at me for using a parachute :-)

Edited January 12, 201313 yr by palko

I've not once said Dropbox is better at version control than Git. Dropbox is better at syncing files. You've gone back to listing features the OP's not mentioned wanting like site updating, bug fixing, team collaboration etc. They're all lovely features but not ones the OP has asked for

 

As for the "If you forget to push your changes then that's your fault". Sure it is, but with Dropbox that's not going to happen is it? Lets just agree to disagree here. Your parachute analogy is pretty unrealistic too. You can't undo hitting the ground and killing yourself...

I've not once said Dropbox is better at version control than Git. Dropbox is better at syncing files. You've gone back to listing features the OP's not mentioned wanting like site updating, bug fixing, team collaboration etc. They're all lovely features but not ones the OP has asked for

 

As for the "If you forget to push your changes then that's your fault". Sure it is, but with Dropbox that's not going to happen is it? Lets just agree to disagree here. Your parachute analogy is pretty unrealistic too. You can't undo hitting the ground and killing yourself...

 

But my point is this: Who wouldn't want to be able to do all the things git can do? Who wouldn't want to be able to go back in time and have a history of the project?

 

My point is that git provides the solution to the original problem AND offers all of these frankly essential features, so therefore it's better. If we're giving advice to someone about how to sync his files, we should offer the best possible solution, git/mercurial are the best solutions to this problem.

 

And talking about what happens if you forget to commit and push is silly - you're just talking about human error there. I could say "what if you setup dropbox incorrectly and accidently copied the files to your local machine, did all your work on them and then found they hadn't synced?". If you make a human error it's just a human error.

Edited January 12, 201313 yr by palko

Right - but you only need to fix any sync error once. Human error can and does happen more than that

Right - but you only need to fix any sync error once. Human error can and does happen more than that

 

I've been using git and mercurial for years, and I don't think I've ever seen this happen. It's just a part of your daily workflow and becomes natural.

 

And I don't see your point - if you made the above mistake in dropbox, the solution is the same as fixing it in git - I don't even see your point.

 

Here's a direct question to you personally - do you actually not use version control for your own projects??

You've never seen someone forget to do something? Sure it becomes part of the daily workflow...but it isn't to begin with. The point about dropbox is even if it's set up incorrectly (which is next to impossible really if you use the .msi file) is that you can correct it which only needs doing once and it then works all of the time

 

And yes as I've pointed out I use version control. I don't use it to transfer files between two systems I work on though because it would slow me down not make me more productive

This is a dumb argument now and I can't really be bothered with it.

 

You're wrong and your arguments are facile and daft.

 

I can't be arsed with it any more. Just some of the reasons as to why git is superior to a hacky and tacky solution like dropbox are here for all to see in this forum. If people want a dirty solution they can use your method. If they want to take advantage of some of the most powerful software for version control and syncing that exists on the planet, they can go with what I said.

 

You've never seen someone forget to do something? Sure it becomes part of the daily workflow...but it isn't to begin with. The point about dropbox is even if it's set up incorrectly (which is next to impossible really if you use the .msi file) is that you can correct it which only needs doing once and it then works all of the time

 

And yes as I've pointed out I use version control. I don't use it to transfer files between two systems I work on though because it would slow me down not make me more productive

Just because not everyone gets as aroused as you do about git doesn't mean they're wrong. You can't face the fact that your beloved git isn't as simple as dropbox for syncing files across platforms. If you don't like people's opinions that's fine. Stop being all high and mighty because you've learnt how to use a toy and think you're perfect. Sadly you aren't. You also sound like a retard using the word 'facile' followed by the word 'daft'

Just because not everyone gets as aroused as you do about git doesn't mean they're wrong. You can't face the fact that your beloved git isn't as simple as dropbox for syncing files across platforms. If you don't like people's opinions that's fine. Stop being all high and mighty because you've learnt how to use a toy and think you're perfect. Sadly you aren't. You also sound like a retard using the word 'facile' followed by the word 'daft'

 

I don't get "aroused" by it - I just know it's the right tool for the job. It's by far and away better than dropbox in every single way for software development, and it's in no way a complicated thing to understand for basic usage.

 

The problem with places like this is that amateur hackers like you think their hacky methods of development are just as valid as tools used by professionals.

 

The solution to the guy's problem is to us a proper tool like git, not to use your hacky method. Anyone in their right mind can see that.

 

I get really irritated by people like you - people who are not particularly good at something, but who are so confident in their ability that they actually argue for their inferior methods over blatantly superior ones. There's not really a debate to be had, and I'm wasting my time here. It's a bit like trying to argue basic maths with someone who believes that 1 + 1 = 10.

Edited January 12, 201313 yr by palko

To be honest, I've read every line of this thread and came this conclusion. I'm going to use dropbox to sync my local files , and GIT for my code stuff!

Don't use dropbox, palko will cry!

To be honest, I've read every line of this thread and came this conclusion. I'm going to use dropbox to sync my local files , and GIT for my code stuff!

 

Good stuff.

 

I'm not gonna post much more in here now. What I would say though, is if you have a little bit of time, have a go through this tutorial and it'll show you the ropes: http://learn.github.com/p/intro.html

 

Sorry for the flamewar - just one of those things. Have a look at that tutorial and good luck

One more great resource: http://git-scm.com/book/en/Getting-Started-About-Version-Control

* shakes head *

 

Read the thread.

 

I did.

 

What is your point?

* shakes head for second time *

 

You're speaking as if Dropbox is attempting to do git does. It obviously doesn't and was never intended that way. Your arguements about git being better than dropbox are frankly stupid, thay are both different products. It's like saying PHP 5.4 is better than HTML5.

 

I'm surprised this thread has gone on so long.

 

The guy started the thread by asking whether he should use github or something else, and was advised to use dropbox, which is a really poor solution.

 

I then pointed out that not only does git/github provide the answer to his original issue, but it gives him all these extra options, and from there I've been told that no, apparently, dropbox is better...

 

Did YOU read the thread?

 

*Edit: my arguments are not stupid. I'm sorry you're incapable of reading a few simple posts - the end result is this: he was advised to use dropbox for the very thing that git should be used for - so for THAT reason I pointed out how git is a far superior option and why dropbox shouldn't be used this way. I AGREE that they are very different tools, which is why dropbox should NEVER be used for this purpose. That was my whole point.

 

You are actually agreeing with me while calling me stupid - you dumbass.

Edited January 12, 201313 yr by palko

Try not to cry sonny jim. Within a few short posts you've demonstrated you most definately do not read threads before replying. "Lead developer" my behind

 

EDIT: any OP, please lock this sorry thread!

 

I'm a lead developer for a company called Electronic Arts. You've probably heard of them.

I get really irritated by people like you - people who are not particularly good at something, but who are so confident in their ability that they actually argue for their inferior methods over blatantly superior ones.

 

This is completely unnecessary ad hominem. Watch your manners or you'll be banned quicker than you can say "Git is awesome".

 

You don't know Jay or his work, so claiming he's "not particularly good at" it is a wild stab in the dark. Jay has repeatedly stated that all he is trying to do is answer the question which the OP asked: the best method to synchronise files between two boxes. Dropbox is that; it's a resident process that stynchronises the contents of a folder with no manual intervention and if both boxes are on the same LAN, it will even use that instead of uploading to the server and down to the other machine.

 

Nobody is disputing that Git is the best form of version control or even that version control is a good thing.

Edited January 12, 201313 yr by Renaissance-Design

This is completely unnecessary ad hominem. Watch your manners or you'll be banned quicker than you can say "Git is awesome".

 

You don't know Jay or his work, so claiming he's "not particularly good at" it is a wild stab in the dark. Jay has repeatedly stated that all he is trying to do is answer the question which the OP asked: the best method to synchronise files between two boxes. Dropbox is that; it's a resident process that stynchronises the contents of a folder with no manual intervention and if both boxes are on the same LAN, it will even use that instead of uploading to the server and down to the other machine.

 

Nobody is disputing that Git is the best form of version control or even that version control is a good thing.

 

Except he was arguing that dropbox is actually better than git (he was saying stuff like "what if you forget to do a commit" as an example of why it's actually better).

 

This argument is going nowhere anyway. Using dropbox for this purpose is just silly when something like git exists. I can't believe I'm even having to make this point, and then actually have to defend it afterwards.

Also missed this the first time around:

 

You are actually agreeing with me while calling me stupid - you dumbass.

 

He didn't call you stupid, he called your argument stupid. The second is acceptable around here, the first isn't. Once more: mind your manners. That's two strikes in one thread.