[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       pypy-dev
Subject:    Re: [pypy-dev] implementing the additional repo migrations
From:       Antonio Cuni <anto.cuni () gmail ! com>
Date:       2011-02-27 17:52:44
Message-ID: AANLkTin0zWLcaDboZrAuQH_QS0oQCqzSV7rp6=Rn3uuy () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

+1 on keeping the pdf files. It happens quite often not to have all
the needed latex packages

On 2/26/11, Carl Friedrich Bolz <cfbolz@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 02/26/2011 01:03 PM, Armin Rigo wrote:
>> Hi Laura,
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Laura Creighton<lac@openend.se>  wrote:
>>> I don't care about the old versions of binary files.
>>
>> That was the only thing we talked about -- as far as I understood, it
>> was never suggested that we should stop tracking revisions of .txt or
>> .tex files.  I don't know the BigfilesExtension either, but it looks
>> to me like we can achieve some more precise result manually.
>> Something along the lines of: the .pdf's built from .tex's are not
>> checked in, but they are in some standardized place on
>> http://pypy.org, where we can fetch them, update them (via ssh), or
>> point people to (via their url).  This can be easily done with a
>> script independent from Mercurial.  (The point is of course that
>> tracking revisions is a bit useless, because we can always go back in
>> time and re-run latex2pdf.)
>
> Not necessarily, it's always possible that whatever latex packages were
> needed to compile the pdf are no longer around or a big hassle to
> install. This can make regeneration impractical. So I am in favor of
> keeping the PDFs in the repo.
>
> Carl Friedrich
> _______________________________________________
> pypy-dev@codespeak.net
> http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
>
_______________________________________________
pypy-dev@codespeak.net
http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]