On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Steve Burnham <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 15, 2014 at 12:28:41 PM, Jürgen Spitzmüller ([email protected]) wrote: >
> but I am not sure RCS > (which is described on that wiki page) could not be corrupted as well by > this bug. Other version control options are described in Help > Additional > Features, sec. 7.2. > > Jürgen > > I just realized as well, if the file becomes corrupted then revision control > won’t do anything for me as I cannot get the file open to access it correct? > I think what I will do then is just have that backup directory and save > frequently like I have been. I don’t have any more trips planned before the > thesis is due so I will also always be on the internet with my online backup > service running. Sounds like you have a good plan, Steve, and I think revision control might be unnecessary. But just to be clear, unless this corruption bug corrupts external files, I don't see how it would disrupt revision control. Once you have a change checked in, you should always be able to get back to that change, unless you do something silly (override something) or unless you haven't checked in a change. I only have experience with Git though, so maybe I'm misunderstanding something. And comparing revision control to just saving frequently, there are other advantages. For example, my document takes a long time to compile, so I don't compile frequently. When I do compile and it fails because of one of LaTeX's famously incomprehensible bugs, instead of dealing with it, I put my revision control on autopilot and it will tell me which of the changes I made first stopped the document from compiling. Again, it might be unnecessarily complicated for many, but I would be an unorganized mess without it. Scott
