RE: CVS corrupts binary files ...

[Paul Sander]

>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden

>[ On Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 09:15:24 (-0400), Jim.Hyslop wrote: ]
>> Subject: RE: CVS corrupts binary files ... 
>>
>> Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, shall we? Granted, CVS was
>> not *originally* designed to handle binary files. Granted, CVS does not
>> handle binary files as well as it handles mergeable text files. But even
>> with CVS's handicaps and limitations WRT binary, CVS is still orders of
>> magnitude better than manually maintaining versions of files in a directory.

>How do you figure that?  A plain old directory is infinitely better at
>managing static content, binary or not, than _any_ versioning tool.
>Anything over and above a plain old directory _only_ adds unnecessary
>layers of complexity.

I've done revision control by backup, and I've done revision control
by naming convention.  Both have proven to be disasters.

Introducing uncontrolled sources into your process is not the answer.

>--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden