Yves, Why do you say to use old-fashioned tools for storing binaries? In my experience, git does a fine job managing binaries. You can even set an attribute to tell git what tool to use instead of diff to compare revisions of binaries (if such a tool is available to dump the file into text form).
Yves Dorfsman <y...@zioup.com> wrote: >On 10-05-06 08:52 AM, Brian Mathis wrote: >> With your firewall issues you will probably be better served with the >> distributed VCS tools, like Mercurial, Git, etc... They give each >> developer a full copy of the repository, so they won't need to be >> accessing over the network all the time. However, they are more >> complex. > >Distributed VCs (mercurial (hg), git etc...) have a lot of advantages, but you >need to be careful with two things: > >-make sure you have one central repository that everybody pulls from, and make >sure that everybody gets into the habit to pull from the main repo before they >make any change. If they don't, you'll end up with a lot of branches that >users new to VCs won't necessarily know how to deal with. No file should be >used in prod unless it is in the central repo. > >-binaries: if you happen to store a lot of binaries, or large ones, then an >old fashion central VC system like SVN works better (and yes, there are good >reasons to store binaries in a VC system). > >and +1 for the tortoise tools. > >-- >Yves. http://www.SollerS.ca/ > xmpp:y...@zioup.com > > >_______________________________________________ >Discuss mailing list >Discuss@lopsa.org >http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators > http://lopsa.org/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lopsa.org http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
