30 Jul
2004
30 Jul
'04
10:14 p.m.
On Friday 30 July 2004 05:03 pm, Stephen Hassard wrote:
subversion might be a better choice if you have lots
of binaries. It
keeps state much better than cvs, such that a move of a repository
folder will be remembered in the repository.
Whatever. I know CVS. Both would be nice. It's the concept, not the color.
John Check wrote:
On Friday 30 July 2004 01:27 pm, Dave Robillard
wrote:
such
On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 05:09, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
-snip-
-snip-
(Thanks for that, by the way, I totally forgot
about subpatches)
Heheh, thanks guy, I hadn't thought of that.
FWIW, one can handle binaries with CVS too. Files have to be flagged as To make it all perfect there should be a
versioning system,
but I guess that's a bit much to ask for :)
Versioning as in CVS for patch files? Well.. yeah, that is a bit much
to ask for. :)
Put your patches in a CVS repository. Done. (They will be xml and CVS
will handle it nicely). CVS is actually a lot simpler to use than many
people give it credit for, for simple things like this anyway. (or CVS has to be configured to associate file
extensions for binaries)
and
> it takes a lot more space than text, but it works.
>
> So, how about having the "save" bits be smart enough to hand things off
> to
>
> CVS? Could be the mother of all patch librarians.