> The solution proposed by the author: two headers and error correction code (ECC) in every file."
When there are two possibilities, which one do you chose? Three allows the software to have a vote among the headers, and ignore or correct the loser (assuming that there IS one, of course).
Also, keeping the headers in text, rather than using complicated encoding schemes to save space where it doesn't much matter, is probably a good idea, as well. Semantic sugar is your friend here.
A while ago I was averaging the cost of ink per mL and it worked out to about 10 cents per mL. Considering an average 1 Litre bottle of wine is about $10, that makes ink 10 times the price of wine.
All very valid caveats. My core point (which you also addresses) was that using a working copy instead of an export of the files puts tons of extra copies of your files and subversion management data under you don't need for web pages.
I do love the atomicity of your method however, and the trick of exporting from a working copy made my day. Thanks!
Deployment to live servers via SVN checkout when the time comes
Side note: I humbly suggest (as someone else mentioned elsewhere) you use export instead of checkout for the live deployments.
I need a "DNS entry" or "config file" or something similarly trivial replaced. It's none of your fucking business why I want it. Just fucking do it.
And changing such "trivial" things as a DNS entry or a config file will never cause any serious problems that the aforementioned IT janitor would have to clean up after, right?
Probably, but personally I have no clue. I'm not actually a Hulu user, or even care enough to do more than read the
Sorry about that. I was mostly just trying to explain the silliness of hiding the important bits behind "sekrit" code which you don't/can't actually keep secret.
General theory for you:
The web browser displays HTML, which is easily displayable and copyable.
Net results: using View Source in the web browser only shows the encoded HTML.