[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CVS and Binaries
From: |
Paul Sander |
Subject: |
Re: CVS and Binaries |
Date: |
Tue, 30 Oct 2001 13:43:46 -0800 |
>--- Forwarded mail from address@hidden
>Sau Dan Lee <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> For your case, I think you'll be better of saving the binary
>> files with names containing version numbers (manually assigned).
>> There is no space lost with this method (since there is no generic
>> way to diff two binary files to produce a minimal diff result).
>> Moreover, one of the most useful function of CVS is to diff
>> arbitrary versions. With binary files, you don't have this useful
>> feature anyway.
>I'm puzzled by what would be gained by saving two different versions of
>a binary file as separate entities rather than as a new version. If you
>have file.doc version 1.1 and commit an update to 1.2, then the
>repository file.doc,v file increases in size. If you add the new file
>as file-1.doc, you've used approximately the same amount of disk space
>in the repository, haven't you? The disk space will be in two ,v files
>instead of 1. At least in browsing through binaries in our repository
>suggests no space savings would result in checking in the files
>separately as opposed to updating an existing file.
>It's much more convenient, from a management point of view, to use the
>update mechanism rather than to keep changing file names. At least for
>binary files that change relatively infrequently. I don't think that
>using CVS would be good for binary files that changed frequently (such
>as a database).
The other benefit to not changing the file name for each revision is that
"cvs log" produces meaningful output.
>--- End of forwarded message from address@hidden