On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> wrote:

In a message of Sat, 26 Feb 2011 10:25:45 +0100, Jacob Hallén writes:

<snip>

...

While I am fine with dropping older revisions of just about everything in extradoc, I wonder if it wouldn't be better better for the future to keep this repository in svn format. That way you will only get one copy of everything when cloning the repository.

Jacob

I'm not fine with the dropping of older revisions.  One of the chief benefits for me of moving to a version control system was that I could feel comfortable ruthlessly condensing my writing, knowing that if I ever wanted this stuff later -- say to use in a different document, I could always go back and get the old revision that contained the wonderful words or diagrams I now propose to cut.  And this has happened in the past, where early versions of things I wrote ended up raised out of the grave of the repository to live on as part of completely different documents.

I'm not going to be comfortable deleting stuff this if I think that the grim reaper is out there, just waiting to purge all my earlier attempts once some document is deemed to be 'final'.  So I either won't delete stuff, or I will go back to my old practice of having dozens of versions around 'just in case'.

I'm fine with continuing to have the extradoc managed by svn, though I really want a script that runs nightly looking for things in extradoc that have a mimetype of binary and complains about this.

Laura

Isn't the debate mostly about older revisions of binary files, since the rest is fine? Or you want to keep those as well? (say .doc)