On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:14 AM, John Long <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's what I have been doing. But it seems very wrong to have to play > games > with this. > It's not a one-size-fits-all situation. Depending on your project, you may need to version executables. For example, the build process for the projects I work on include shell scripts in addition to the makefile. Yes, they could be executed with "bash somescript", but that is not how the "process geeks" want to do things, so we live with it. And someone already mentioned about configure. Also, in our "Tools" project, the built executables are versioned so that updates can be easily pulled with out the need to rebuild it locally. Yes, there are other ways we could do this, but why have 2 versioning systems? Also, we don't want to use the IT department's software deployment system as it would require getting IT's process geeks involved. Whether Fossil defaults to ignoring executables or not ignoring, there will still be a need to tweek this.
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
