0

I'm working on a XNA project in C# (using Visual Studio 2010 with the Git Source Control Provider extension) and I'd like to create a new branch, release, that will only include the /bin/x86/Release folder. How do I do that?

Do I have to change the .gitignore? I know the basics to making branches, and I'm branching from the development branch. I am also using Git Extensions, but I can use the console if needed.

Edward B.
  • 417
  • 1
  • 6
  • 15
  • Humm... So you want a source control branch... with no source code? I think you should host your binaries (and other artifacts) somewhere else. – dcastro Nov 04 '13 at 17:05
  • I like the simplicity of git so I'd like to be able to do that. To clarify, the development branch, for example, contains all the source code. I'd just like to have a branch where I can keep my executables for releases. – Edward B. Nov 04 '13 at 17:11
  • Although you _could_ do that, I strongly advice against it - that's not what git is for. The two branches (one for source, one for bin) would barely even be related. Which files would they have in common? More strong arguments: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10346370/what-is-the-best-practice-of-distributing-binaries-from-a-github-project – dcastro Nov 04 '13 at 17:18
  • Also, is your dev branch _also_ keeping track of binary files? If so - untrack them immediately. Doing so is redundant, and your `.git` folder will grow to a massive size, because it will keep a copy of _every single build_ you've ever done. 500 commits -> at least 500 binary files. – dcastro Nov 04 '13 at 17:19
  • Git repositories bloat rapidly (and badly) when you put large binaries inside them. Clones and repack operations start taking a long time. At a previous $job we kept a lot of binaries in git repos for silly "process" reasons and the solution to the bloat issue was that we'd have one repo for each binary release, which kind of defeats the point of repos (but, well, "silly process reasons"). – torek Nov 04 '13 at 23:15

0 Answers0