[ 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