[ On Wednesday, June 9, 2004 at 09:15:24 (-0400), Jim.Hyslop wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: CVS corrupts binary files ...
>
> Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, shall we? Granted, CVS was
> not *originally* designed to handle binary files. Granted, CVS does not
> handle binary files as well as it handles mergeable text files. But even
> with CVS's handicaps and limitations WRT binary, CVS is still orders of
> magnitude better than manually maintaining versions of files in a directory.
How do you figure that? A plain old directory is infinitely better at
managing static content, binary or not, than _any_ versioning tool.
Anything over and above a plain old directory _only_ adds unnecessary
layers of complexity.
Haven't you learned yet that you'll do a lot better if you choose the
best tools for each job rather than hitting everything on the head with
your damn hammer!?!?!?!?!
--
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098 VE3TCP RoboHack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Planix, Inc. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Secrets of the Weird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
