Patrice Clement posted on Sun, 24 Jan 2016 16:00:31 +0100 as excerpted: > "Again you should not compress these patches because git does not play > well binary files". > > I'm not sure this statement still holds true with git. Does it?
It does. Git is designed to be extremely efficient at distributed source version control, and works best with text-based sources which it can treat "intelligently". Not only does it do its own text compression in the pak files, it's relatively dumb in terms of binary differences, being able to tell a binary file changed, but effectively considering it a single file level change while with text it does line-level tracking. By compressing a patch or doing a tarball, you're effectively turning it into a single blob in terms of tracking, while as the uncompressed text- based patch-files, git can not only track the individual files, but individual lines within them. While with patch-files losing the individual line tracking isn't generally a huge loss (the patches tend to be replaced as a whole, without line-level changes within a single patch), losing the per-component-patch file tracking is. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
