3 ms·
It may be sacrelege but you could store your binaries in hg and in hg use a git submodule for the git repos that were used to build those binaries. This is wha
by CoolGuySteve 11y ago
It may be sacrelege but you could store your binaries in hg and in hg use a git submodule for the git repos that were used to build those binaries.
This is what I'm doing after a disastrous excursion into git-fat.
But really, if git's maintainers don't want to store binaries, why shoehorn it in? Use the right tool for the job.
- Mathiasdm 11y agoFor some added context about handling binaries in Mercurial, see the (in development) Mercurial book: http://hgbook.org/read/scaling.html#handle-large-binaries-with-the-largefiles-extension http://hgbook.org/read/scaling.html#handle-large-binaries-wi...
- ShookOnes 11y agoI also went with the hg solution to enjoy it's core large-file support but ultimately switched to git-annex so I didn't have to support and learn each technology. git-lfs looks to be good but I'm still waiting a small, standalone production-ready server implementation.
- exDM69 11y agoHaving a separate git repo for large files and shallow cloning it should be similar to having another repo in hg/svn for large files.