login
Header Space

 
 

Re: Git Vs. Svn for a project which *must* distribute binaries too.

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@...>
Cc: Bryan Childs <godeater@...>, <git@...>
Date: Monday, June 4, 2007 - 8:21 pm

On Mon, 4 Jun 2007, Daniel Barkalow wrote:

Yes, I think git should be very nice for doing binary stuff like firmware 
images too, my only worry is literally about "mixing it in" with other 
stuff.

Putting lots of binary blobs into a git archive should work fine: but 
if you would then start tying them together (with a commit chain), it just 
means that even if you only really want _one_ of them, you end up getting 
them all, which sounds like a potential disaster.

On the other hand, if you actually want a way to really *archive* the dang 
things, that may well be what you actually want. In that case, having a 
separate branch that only contains the binary stuff might actually be what 
you want to do (and depending on the kind of binary data you have, the 
delta algorithm might even be good at finding common data sequences and 
compressing it).


Yeah, if you just tag individual blobs, git will keep track of them, but 
won't link them together, so you can easily just look up and fetch a 
single one from such an archive. Sounds sane enough.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: Git Vs. Svn for a project which *must* distribute binari..., Linus Torvalds, (Mon Jun 4, 8:21 pm)
Re: Git Vs. Svn for a project which *must* distribute binari..., Johannes Schindelin, (Mon Jun 4, 10:56 pm)
Re: Git Vs. Svn for a project which *must* distribute binari..., Johannes Schindelin, (Mon Jun 4, 10:58 am)
speck-geostationary