It's good to use a separate git repository (or svn repository or whatever works best for you) for storing large assets. You can use it as a git submodule to pull in a specific revision ID (so it's somewhat similar to svn:external, except you have to update it yourself and commit changes to the pointer in the parent repository). That way it only takes up a tiny text file in the main git repo.
On 29 April 2014 07:50, Dominique Devienne <ddevie...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Antoine Levy Lambert <anto...@gmx.de> > wrote: > > On Apr 29, 2014, at 3:32 AM, Dominique Devienne <ddevie...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Just for info, what makes you say that? Why would git be worse than > >> SVN for large files? > > > > Below see some references found in google, the first one says that each > version of a large file is stored > > (or maybe each version with a different md5). > > [DD] Read this old thread [1], I get the impression that git supports > deltas both during network transfers, and in the remote repo, but > chooses performance by default over disk-space, by keeping full copies > of files. But git does support delta-compression, even across "files" > apparently. So I guess it's more the matter of DCVS' in general > forcing you to get the whole repos, that is the main drawback of > storing large files in them. But I'm definitely out of my depth here, > so I'll stop here :). --DD > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@ant.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@ant.apache.org > > -- Matt Sicker <boa...@gmail.com>
