Large files and long histories hinder its total dominance in the game and art industries. Because of git's shortcomings polyrepo is a near necessity not simply a stylistic choice. LFS is a bolt on solution that could/should have better support.
Large files and long histories hinder its total dominance in the game and art industries. Because of git's shortcomings polyrepo is a near necessity not simply a stylistic choice. LFS is a bolt on solution that could/should have better support.
I'm intrigued by this claim. I've come to the opposite conclusion - that monorepo is near necessity with git because there's no tools for branching/rebasing multiple repos at once.
I would use it for storing and syncing libraries of large images for my photography, if it were feasible.
Which one you should use depends on which downsides are less impactful for your use case.
As an optimization, when it packs several objects together in a pack file, it can store objects as a delta to other (possibly unrelated) objects; there's a whole set of heuristics used to choose which objects to delta against, like having the same file name. And yes, one of these heuristics does have an effect similar to "reverse chronological order"; see https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Documentation/technic... for the details.
Like gitlabs own web ide that seems to ignore LFS rules.