How do you feel about storing binary files with Git? - eviltoast

I think it’s generally agreed upon that large files that change often do not belong while small files that never change are fine. But there’s still a lot of middle ground where the answer is not so clear to me.

So what’s your stance on this? Where do you draw the line?

  • borf@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    hiss The point of source control is keeping a history of the code that produces binary artifacts. For convenience’ sake or because of some wild project-specific constraints people can do all kinds of things but IMO binaries in source control are yucky yucky bad bad bad.

    • Limonene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      I agree that the repository should only contain source files, not the output of the build process. However, in some cases (like icon images) the source files may be binary. I think small binaries that are required to build and/or run the software, and that are not an output of any build process, do make sense to put in the repository.

        • Windex007@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          That’s not really responding to their point. Are you saying that there are no project resources that aren’t (or couldn’t be) encoded as text representation in any conceivable project that is stored in a git repo?

          I agree with your general point. I’m just curious if you have some unique project pattern techniques that allow you to draw such a hard line so confidently.