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. John Check wrote: > On Friday 30 July 2004 01:27 pm, Dave Robillard wrote: > >>On Fri, 2004-07-30 at 05:09, Thorsten Wilms wrote: > > -snip- > -snip- > >>(Thanks for that, by the way, I totally forgot about subpatches) >> >> >>>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. > > > Heheh, thanks guy, I hadn't thought of that. > FWIW, one can handle binaries with CVS too. Files have to be flagged as such > (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.
