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: > >>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.
