Re: use case: keep the output of a markup (TeX) file under revision control

On 2/17/2011 8:51 PM, Paul Menzel wrote:

quoted

Why don't you keep the PDF files in a separate branch ? Look at git's
git repository (http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git) in the html 
and man branches.

Very interesting. Thank you very much for this hint.

Is the used solution in git’s git repository a result of the problem
with maintaining generated output from source files or does it have
other other advantages too?

When creating TeX documents – at least in my work flow – I always have
the PDF file open in parallel. Would that be a problem when having it in
a separate branch?

I'd create a second clone and checkout the 'PDF' (or whatever you might call
it) branch there.

Also I guess that this is done automatically too (saying autogenerated
in `git log origin/man`). I could not find the script though.

        $ git grep Autogen
        git-gui/Makefile:        echo '# Autogenerated by git-gui Makefile' >$@ && \
        git-gui/git-gui.sh:if {[gets $fd] eq {# Autogenerated by git-gui Makefile}} {

and searching for »git "Autogenerated manpages for"« did not return
anything useful for me.

Try: git grep "Autogenerated " origin/todo
It's in 'dodoc.sh' on branch 'todo'

Additionally I am confused where the SHA id g43f9f in »Autogenerated
manpages for v1.7.4.1-42-g43f9f« comes from. I could not find that
commit in `origin/master` or `git log v1.7.4.1`.

Try: git show 43f9f  (and 'git help describe')
 

The last thing is that in git’s git repository the autogeneration of the
manual pages does not seem to happen every commit (Is it a cron job?).
In my use case the PDF file should be generated after every commit. Is a
separate branch the way to go here?

I guess the autogeneration takes place on every push to 'master'. That
should work for you, too. Your decision...

HTH,
  Stefan
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
/dev/random says: I was going to procrastinate, but I put it off....