It's all discussed further down in the tread, and I gave as much info as I could. I'm not at liberty to discuss details in public - nor do I need to. Further d

It's all discussed further down in the tread, and I gave as much info as I could. I'm not at liberty to discuss details in public - nor do I need to. Further down on the page somebody else also mentions a legitimate use case to version-control large binaries (needed for comparison). Another use-case I've seen is version control rendered video output and keep the comments and metadata attached to the versions. Works just fine with SVN, fails hard in git. Yet another use case for a system that handles binaries better is what the rubygems folks do - they vendor all gems that a particular version of rubygems.org depends on so they can bootstrap without rubygems.org being available. They built a custom solution using multiple git repos which works for their use-case (it's been discussed on rubygems). Arguably, having a system where versioning large amounts of binary data works better than in git would have prevented that issue. So there are use-cases that are ill-suited for what git can and cannot do - and just because I say I have one I get to be called a bad craftsman by someone who doesn't know the least bit about what I'm trying to do? And now you're saying that I engage in a flamewar when I point out that I consider that an insult? Please note that I have not insulted Crito.