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
(text/plain)