Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
There are a few mercurial extensions for dealing with large binary files.
I’d like to use the one that is most likely to be official (ie distributed with mercurial).
Kiln 2.0 uses a fork of Bfiles for its binary files. Does that make it more likely to become official?
Which is the preferred (semi-official) extension for handling binary files?
It appears that Mercurial is planning to incorporate the ‘largefiles’ extension for the November 2.0 release.Mercurial incorporated the ‘largefiles’ extension in the 2.0 release. This extension is a descendent of ‘kbfiles’ (from Kiln), which is in turn a descendent of the bfiles extension.It makes largefile support much more integrated into the Mercurial commands than bfiles did, and supports pushing to http(s) urls which I believe bfiles did not.