Timeline for Version Control for Design files
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 15, 2014 at 5:46 | comment | added | joojaa | Mercurial may be beyter than git in regards of big binary files | |
| Jan 13, 2011 at 14:07 | comment | added | Shikiryu | @Charles Stewart : This might need some training... Remember g = july is hard (at least, when you start using it) But that's a cleaner solution in this situation IMO anyway :) | |
| Jan 13, 2011 at 14:04 | comment | added | Charles Stewart | Off at a tangent: using letters instead of numbers for months (Jan=a, ... Dec=l) makes dates much less ugly in file listings: today is 2011a13 or 20110113. I use this in invoice identifiers. | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 14:44 | vote | accept | phwd | ||
| Jan 7, 2011 at 13:15 | comment | added | Shikiryu | I converted some of my friends to SVN but once they see the utility, they adopt it pretty easily. Plus, seriously, using rapidSVN or TortoiseSVN is really easy. Anyway, it's just an advice and the way I use it. File naming is nice too for small project IMHO. | |
| Jan 7, 2011 at 12:49 | comment | added | e100 | I have to say I wouldn't like the job of trying to get a designer who isn't also a programmer to use SVN/GIT! Unless there is a client based around this use case? | |
| Jan 6, 2011 at 8:39 | comment | added | Shikiryu | Well, pro SVN : Easier to work with (I tried both, and svn is pretty straight for basic command), can work local or free private repo like assembla I use. pro GIT : Easier to fork / merge when in multi-user case (which isn't my case), better handle of file size if there's not too much files, can work local or private repo too. Only advice I would give to anyone is try both and choose the one that fit your needs | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 23:31 | comment | added | Can Berk Güder |
@Mnementh: You should see significant differences in repo sizes as you introduce more revisions (of course, don't forget to run git gc regularly). Also, git is much faster, but this isn't limited to binary files. I have nothing against SVN, but I think git is a much better VCS in every respect.
|
|
| Jan 5, 2011 at 23:13 | comment | added | Mnementh | I actually tried both with a 5MB big binary file. SVN has a repository-size with 5,6MB size (but additionally the working copy) and git has combined working copy and repository of 11MB size. Both handle minor changes to the file quite well without big increases in the size. So I think both work well for binary files like design-files. | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 23:03 | comment | added | Mnementh | @Darth: You need a repository, but you don't need a server. You can use a local repository with a file-URL. I use it on my computer to store all stuff I want to version-control but not to publish. Works fine. | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 23:02 | comment | added | Mnementh | @Can Berk Güder: Is git really better handling binary files? I never experienced problems with binary files in SVN. I think that's an legend. | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 20:47 | comment | added | Jakub Arnold | git also doesn't require you to set up server with a repository, which makes starting out much easier | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 19:13 | comment | added | Can Berk Güder | git, while probably much harder to grasp for someone with no previous VCS experience, has much better support for binary files than SVN. | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 16:03 | history | answered | Shikiryu | CC BY-SA 2.5 |