On 14-Jun-07, at 1:26 PM, Eric Nicholson wrote:
> On 6/14/07, Toby Johnson <toby@etjohnson.us> wrote:
>
>> In this case I would recommend setting up a separate repo for the
>> binary
>> stuff. That way your source code repo remains light, small, and fast,
> That's great for using blame if you care about it, but having your
> code repo depend on a second repo that needs to be kept in sync is
> definitely not light, small, or fast.
>
> Being able to check out a fresh or old copy of the code and build is
> much more important than diffing/merging/blaming imho.
>
> The principal of not putting artifacts into SCM probably goes back to
> RCS days, and a lot has changed since then. It's still generally good
> guidance, but there are cases where it needs to be done.
And the rest of the cases just create future misery. :)
Actually, I think this issue belongs to the "establish and publish a
very clear policy for *your* repository" category, like several other
FAQs? Every situation is slightly different, after all...
Tagging is a brilliant way to define deliverables, e.g. I just can't
stand seeing objects and other derived files in my repos. :)
> There are
> only a couple relatively minor tweaks to subversion that would make it
> relatively painless: support actual modification times and
> configurable conflict resolution.
>
> The worries about expensive binary deltas, poor performance, and
> difficult merging aren't as significant as you might think compared to
> the alternatives.
--Toby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jun 14 19:16:25 2007