I'm a new user of git in an organization that's still getting used to git. I've got a question about a practice here that I don't understand.
My work is concerned mainly with documentation. In this area our text (non-binary) source files are stored in one repository; our image (binary) files are stored in another. I asked about the reason for this, and was told that it has to do with repository size. As I understood it, putting binary files and non-binary files in the same repository would make the repository increase in size rapidly as the binary files are updated, and the repository would soon become unmanageable. I don't understand that. I see that updating binary files is likely to make the repository expand rapidly, at least if the delta mechanism is not designed to work on binaries. However, I don't see why storing binaries and non-binaries in different repositories would help. It seems to me that creating huge deltas will have the same effect no matter how the content base is partitioned. Can anyone help me understand why keeping binary files in a separate repository is useful in this case? Or if it's not, how I might have misunderstood the explanation? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
