The complaints about git-lfs make me think we need to tell people about BAM for BitKeeper. http://www.bitkeeper.com/features_binary_asset_management_bam http:/

The complaints about git-lfs make me think we need to tell people about BAM for BitKeeper. http://www.bitkeeper.com/features_binary_asset_management_bam http://www.bitkeeper.com/features_binary_asset_management_ba... BAM works with a similar idea, instead of saving large files in the local repository, users are allowed to save them in a centralized server. This saves disk space and network transfer time. However, unlike other solutions, BAM preserves the semantics of distributed development. Instead of requiring a single or standardized set of servers, every user can have a different BAM server. Data is moved between servers automatically and on demand. One group in an office might use a single BAM server for storing all their data close and locally. When another development group is started in India, they can use a server local to them. The binary assets will automatically transfer to the India server as commits are pulled between sites. This allows centralized storage of your data and yet still supports having a team work while completely disconnected from the internet.