How would subversion be better?  Isn't a binary file a binary file a 
binary file as far as versioning systems?
I know that Visual Source Safe is pretty awful in a worst case scenario 
rebuild whereas CVS can be rebuilt fairly easy in case of a catastrophic 
failure.
I haven't worked with subversion but from reading a competing versioning 
system marketing, subversion stores it's repository information in the 
same data mess that VSS has.

I don't see how storing a binary file with a timestamp is a bad thing 
even if it does grow rather fast.  Disks are cheap today at $.50 a gig.



Alan Dayley wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 May 2005 05:41 pm, Bryan.ONeal@asu.edu wrote:
> 
>>The files are going to be things like AutoCAD drawings.  So unless
>>something dose layer and dif checking on that, I think any version
>>controller that tells us who had what last and if their is a conflict
>>when checking in, will do just fine.  And I figured CVS had been around
>>long enough support should not be an issue...
>>
>>Thanks for the links, I will report back and let you all know how they
>>like their first taste of Linux ;)
> 
> 
> It has been too long since I have been around AutoCAD... If the files are 
> binary (ie. not text) CVS is not a good choice.  CVS stores an entire 
> copy of each version of a file that is checked in.  You can get any 
> version back and it will keep a log and all the usual functions except 
> for doing diffs.  But with large AutoCAD files your repository will grow 
> very fast, depending on how often users commit to the repository.
> 
> Subversion would be a better choice and is very CVS-like.  There are other 
> version control systems out there that handle binary files better than 
> CVS.
> 
> Alan
> ---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss