On May 4, 2002 04:22 am, Francois Gouget wrote: > On Sat, 4 May 2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote: > [...] > > > > CVS can handle binary files no problem. Can someone please refresh my > > > memory on why storing binary _images_ in CVS is such a bad idea? > > > > I think it is because CVS can't store the diffs between binary files. > > It stores the whole file even if only one byte change. So it takes > > a lot of space to store the history of the file. > > > > Of course storing space is cheap nowadays... > > But I believe it makes CVS slower too. Especially if you changed the > file or if you 'touched' it by mistake.
To reply to both these at the same time: I have worked on projects that had all their .gif files in CVS. Thousands of them. Space and speed were not a problem, despite the large number of users we had, and the antiquated machine (by todays standards) we were running the CVS server on. In wine we have a (maybe) a few tens, or at most a hundred, _small_ images. Storage space and speed is _not_ a problem. As for the cvs -t argument, ... Oh, come on! :) I would argue that compatibility with MS' rc is more important... -- Dimi.
