I hear that git is a really bad idea for saving binary data. The reason behind it from what I have read is that git in each commit stores the entire file tree structure and not just the files commited, meaning that if you commit in a directory of 100 mb of data, then you will get 100 mb per commit, will take you only 10 commits for 1 GB. All that assuming that that data is tracked by your git repo (git add).
So if you dont want to version control that data, it would make more sense to use something like dropbox or torrents etc. Dropbox also offers some very basic version control, but its very limited AFAIK. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:39 AM, François Stephany < tulipe.mouta...@gmail.com> wrote: > Git. > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM, <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: > >> François Stephany wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> Projects are not only source code anymore. Most of my projects have a >> gazillion of images, javascript, CSS files, etc. >> Storing all those external files in .mcz packages is not scalable (and not >> even elegant). >> >> >> >> What do you consider are scalable alternatives for storing external files >> related to a project? >> cheers -ben >> >> >> FileTree+Git, while not ideal, solve the issue quite nicely. And you don't >> need Github anyway... >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Camillo Bruni <camillobr...@gmail.com> >> <camillobr...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2013-11-03, at 15:52, Stephan Eggermont <step...@stack.nl> >> <step...@stack.nl> wrote: >> >> >> >> Kilon wrote >> >> >> I take a look at previous experiments like squeaksource and I find >> >> >> little justification to not support Github. But then I am not against >> Smalltalkhub or other >repos being available to Pharo. The more the merrier. >> >> >> I see some very strong arguments against depending on github: >> - it is centralized infrastructure, essentially unsuitable for use with >> >> >> a distributed version control system; >> >> >> - it doesn’t support working at the right granularity; >> - the smalltalk community is too small to have any influence on the >> >> >> directions github is taking. >> >> >> It is a commercial organization that can decide to do something we >> >> >> don’t like at any time. >> >> >> It is free, so we are the product. Just take a look at sourceforge; >> - we can do much better than github (but don’t have enough time). We >> >> >> should be using a P2P, >> >> >> bittorrent like system for version control. >> >> >> github != git and whether we use github or now does not matter at all. >> What matters is that we use technology that is robust and that we have a >> versioning >> system that works decentralized. All of that is solved by git. >> >> With filetree we have the proper granularity (methods) >> With github we have an awesome website, such as we have an aweseome >> website with smalltalkhub, execpt that monticello should be modernized. >> Sadly the community is too small to achieve that, and inventing yet another >> versioning tool/system won't help on the short run. Maybe, yes someday in >> the future we can have our own fancy fully object-oriented versioning >> system, but IMO that is wasted effort, as git/mercurial come very close to >> something ideal. >> >> I am happy to give more insight into git, because I think you have quite a >> wrong picture about it :) >> >> >> >> >> >> >
