Menu
I have heard some claims that SVN handles binary files better than Git/Mercurial. Is this true and if so then why? As far as I can imagine, no version control system (VCS) can diff and merge changes between two revisions of the same binary resources.
So, aren't all VCS's bad at handling binary files? I am not very aware of the technical details behind particular VCS implementations so maybe they have some pros and cons.
412
Most version control systems that do handle binary assets have to store them separately. Helix Core stores binaries alongside source code in the same depot. You can easily find and update the file you need, allowing you to streamline your build process.
If Subversion determines that the file is binary, the file receives an svn:mime-type property set to application/octet-stream. You can always override this by using the auto-props feature or by setting the property manually with svn propset . Subversion treats the following files as text: Files with no svn:mime-type.
The types of VCS are: Local Version Control System. Centralized Version Control System. Distributed Version Control System.
The main pain point is in the "Distributed" aspect of any DVCS: you are cloning everything (the all history of all files)
Since binaries aren't stored in delta for most of them, and aren't compressed as well as text file, if you are storing rapidly evolving binaries, you end up quickly with a large repository which becomes much cumbersome to move around (push/pull).
For Git for instance, see What are the git limits?.
Binaries aren't a good fit for the feature a VCS can bring (diff, branch, merge), and are better managed in an artifact repository (like a Nexus for example).
This is not necessary the case for a CVCS (Centralized VCS) where the repository could play that role and be a storage for binaries (even if its not its primary role)
133
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
