Very true but it begs the question of generic picture management policy.

Posted Jun 20, 2010 20:09 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
In reply to: Very true but it begs the question of generic picture management policy. by doogie
Parent article: A quick grumpy review of Shotwell

For images? Unless you can convince everyone to rescale their photos to small sizes (good luck with that), it's not going to work. git isn't good at giant binary lump tracking.

(e.g. I've been taking photos for less than three months in a serious way and I already have >10Gb of them. git repos that size are hard indeed to manage.)

Very true but it begs the question of generic picture management policy.

Posted Jun 21, 2010 1:07 UTC (Mon) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

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)

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.