RE: CVS corrupts binary files ...

[Jim.Hyslop]

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)