[rmedaer]

IMO it might be a good idea to store binary assets in Git from a "history management" point of view.

However it's a mess when you have to deal with a lot of huge files. Not especially because of bad-habit but because it's hard to manage on day-to-day and you will face a lot of issues.

One of the issues I got recently is the time required to switch between branches (if LFS-tracked files are changing). It is due to the "checkout" and how git-lfs works (see the Github issue). Actually it copies the file... This operation takes time... Instead it could use hard-link or symbolic-link.

[actionowl]

> IMO it might be a good idea to store binary assets in Git from a "history management" point of view.

You can't diff them, just see that they changed. If you have versions in the filename of the object that helps but isn't great from an auditing perspective. People change filenames, and if someone alters or tampers with the file it's hard to tell. You might argue that this is also possible if you fetch the file somewhere or install a package and link against it, but you have a better audit trail, packages can (should) also be signed.