3 ms·
> I've typically bypassed the need for a lockfile by simply checking in the dependencies. Dependencies belong in version control! These are binary dependencies
by nonameiguess 3y ago
> I've typically bypassed the need for a lockfile by simply checking in the dependencies. Dependencies belong in version control!
These are binary dependencies. You're checking shared object files into source control? Note that he's also doing this to add functionality to a binary installation of sqlite, which is presumably running somewhere like /usr/bin/sqlite. This isn't a custom application he's developing. The extensions are in his home directory. "Checking them into version control" would entail making his entire filesystem a Git repo. If you're willing to pay whatever IBM charges these days for ClearCase, something like that might actually work. Regular source control like Git, though? I don't think so.
- forrestthewoods 3y agoBinaries absolutely should go in version control. The fact that Git is incapable of efficiently supporting that workflow is a separate topic.
- seabass-labrax 3y agoI think you are right. Tarballs with version strings as filenames served from an HTTPD are effectively a poor man's version control. Git commits are immutable and efficient (storing only the delta) for text, but those same benefits could apply to binary files too if only the tooling was better. You may be interested to know that Debian actually does use Git to store binary data, although only when it is not possible to use the source files to generate the binary data directly.