Sorry if it read that way. I have no vested interest in convincing anyone of any VCS tools' superiority over any other.
(I do, however, reject the idea you sometimes hear put forth that any tool at all can be the best in some situations, and so it's pointless to ever argue about relative merits. There are tools that are strictly better than other tools. git isn't one of them, but they do exist and dismissing the inferior tool isn't "religion" in such cases, it's an honest analysis and sysadmins should be aware of those cases so they don't waste their time on obsolete products.) Yves made a definitive statement about a shortcoming of newer tools of which I wasn't aware. I'd like to hear more so that if I'm ever in the position of needing to version control a lot of binary files I'll know the pitfalls. Brian Mathis <brian.mat...@gmail.com> wrote: >Please don't start a "which VCS is better even though I know it's git" >war. All we need to talk about are which options are out there, which >I believe we have already done, and then allow the OP to make the >right decision based on their own requirements. > > >On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Trey Harris <t...@lopsa.org> wrote: >> 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). >> > >_______________________________________________ >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/
