Re: [pypy-dev] implementing the additional repo migrations
In a message of Sat, 26 Feb 2011 11:54:39 +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski writes:
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)
I don't care about the old versions of binary files. Laura
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.) Well, this was my 2 cents to this discussion, but maybe Ronny is just worrying too much. I don't think we care that much about saving space or transfer time. It's anyway not like everybody on the planet should download our extradoc repository. A bientôt, Armin.
On 02/26/2011 01:03 PM, Armin Rigo wrote:
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
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.) Well, this was my 2 cents to this discussion, but maybe Ronny is just worrying too much. I don't think we care that much about saving space or transfer time. It's anyway not like everybody on the planet should download our extradoc repository. A bientôt, Armin.
On 02/26/2011 01:03 PM, Armin Rigo wrote:
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
participants (4)
-
Antonio Cuni -
Armin Rigo -
Carl Friedrich Bolz -
Laura Creighton