On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Peter Otten <__pete...@web.de> wrote:
> Ben Finney wrote: > > > David Aldrich <david.aldr...@emea.nec.com> writes: > > > >> I have setup Sphinx for my Python project. We keep all our code and > >> documentation in Subversion. > > > > It's a good idea to keep *source* files in VCS. > > > > The VCS should track only those files that humans edit directly. > > Isn't this a case of purity versus practicality? I imagine it might be nice > to get fairly up-to-date documentation along with your source code checkout > "for free". IMO, this is a decision an organization / individual has to make. But nothing stops anybody from using branch (and tags in hg) to differentiate pure source and pure build. On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 2015-09-17, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > > The VCS should track only those files that humans edit directly. > > While I agree that files automatically generated shouldn't be checked > in to a VCS, I'm in favor of putting key binary files under VCS if > they are required to do the build. if you are okay with cloning a huge repository then I don't see a problem. You could have a separate repository for binary data, after VCS is just a software implements some smart versioning of an object in some format stored on somewhere. I know of no convenient mechanism to reduce size of my .git or my .hg once I committed my binary in my history. What I would do is provide the script a URL where you can get your files. Imagine infrastructure as code, I can't commit my oracle jdk/jre file all the time. I have a huge infrastructure to manage and it would be GBs to clone. It happened to me once and I regret it. Thanks. John
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
