+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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/26/2011 01:03 PM, Armin Rigo wrote: >> Hi Laura, >> >> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Laura Creighton<[email protected]> 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 > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] > http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev > _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
