Greg A. Woods wrote: > [ 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. Ah, I think I've spotted the root of this disagreement. I was not talking about static information, but binary information that can, and does, change.
For static information, yes, CVS is overkill. But if it changes, then I stand by my earlier statement: CVS is orders of magnitude better than manual versioning with directories. -- Jim Hyslop Senior Software Designer Leitch Technology International Inc. (http://www.leitch.com) Columnist, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com/experts) _______________________________________________ Info-cvs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs