| |||||||||||||
Very true but it begs the question of generic picture management policy.Very true but it begs the question of generic picture management policy.Posted Jun 21, 2010 1:07 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Very true but it begs the question of generic picture management policy. by nix Parent article: A quick grumpy review of Shotwell
this partly depends on if the changes to the files are in the images or if it's mostly changing metadata.
if it's a lot of editing (and saving the intermediate images) git is definitely bad for the job.
if it's mostly metadata changes and tagging, then git is merely poor (with a fairly clear roadmap of how to get better)
(Log in to post comments)
Very true but it begs the question of generic picture management policy. Posted Jun 21, 2010 21:33 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Unfortunately, even if there are very few changes to the images, git does badly with giant binary blobs. It's true that does *worse* if the images are edited heavily, but, really, for things like this you don't want *any* extra copies of the images lying around, and git's going to give you one every fifty-odd commits, as long as there's a modification in there somewhere.
|
|||||||||||||