3 ms·
> For example, one thing that Git handles poorly is large files, and it doesn't do well with large repos, either. To be fair though, it's a source tracker whic
by bb88 6y ago
> For example, one thing that Git handles poorly is large files, and it doesn't do well with large repos, either.
To be fair though, it's a source tracker which are usually small-ish text files. It's not really meant to be a Digital Asset Manager, say.
Git can do a shallow clone as well for very large repos. Much of that deep information becomes probably useless over time, unless you're doing code archaeology.
- atombender 6y agoWell, the thread is about what comes after Git. If you ask me how Git could be improved, then what it's "meant" for doesn't matter if there are unsolved use cases. Also, there's no particular reason Git couldn't be modified to work well with large files.
- bb88 6y ago> Git couldn't be modified to work well with large files. Apologies for the late response. Yes. I absolutely agree with that. The trick though is that when changes happen to a large file, what's the best way to do a diff? What if it's bzip2 or encrypted? The other issue is that stagnant large files in your history need to be pruned. I'm not sure how to do that in git right now other than rewrite history.