If you don't want to pollute your fossil repository with LBFs, you could use a similar approach to git's lfs solution by storing the actual files in Dropbox or boar (https://bitbucket.org/mats_ekberg/boar/wiki/Home) and text-linking to them from within your fossil-managed repo. I haven't tried either approach yet, but it seems feasible.
On 28 October 2015 at 05:24, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@britannica.bec.de> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:01:09PM -0400, Ron W wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Abilio Marques <abili...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > ... > > > > > As far as I can see, binary files get uploaded into a web server using > > > PUT, and then a reference is made into the repo. That way git doesn't > deal > > > with useless DIFFs of such files. Then, when a checkout is made, it > > > downloads the file over http/https. Seems like a neat solution. > > > > > > I guess that fossil users with a bunch of local repos (like myself) > > > wouldn't benefit if they had to load a web server. But for other > people, > > > perhaps... Perhaps if instead of a web server, the file just gets > copied in > > > a directory... I don't know... > > > > > > > Fossil's internal diffing algorithm handles binary files quite well. > Also, > > I recall reading somewhere that Fossil is able to determine when just > > storing the new content would be more efficient. > > Same for git really. > > Joerg > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
