> On Tue, 2003-09-09 at 14:53, Greg A. Woods wrote: > > [ On Tuesday, September 9, 2003 at 10:10:46 (-0400), Tom Copeland wrote: ] > > > Subject: Re: Countering the usual diatribe against binary files, was Re: cvs > > > diff, proposal for change > > > > > > Hm. Do CVS branches not work right with binary files? > > > > It depends on what you mean by "work". Merging branches containing > > binary files is one heck of a lot more work. > > Cool, yup, right, merging binary files isn't going to happen. > Isn't going to happen with any other version control system I know of, either, which is why I don't see why CVS should be bad for binary files. It isn't going to buy you much over a simpler solution, but I don't see that it will cost anything, assuming that CVS is already set up. I wouldn't use CVS just to store binary files, but I would and have happily used it to store binary files associated with text files. -- Now building a CVS reference site at http://www.thornleyware.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
