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

From: Stefan Naewe <stefan.naewe@atlas-elektronik.com>
Date: Feb 17, 2011, 12:03 UTC
Message-ID: <4D5D0EA2.4000805@atlas-elektronik.com>
In-Reply-To: <1297939020.3959.12.camel@mattotaupa>

On 2/17/2011 11:37 AM, Paul Menzel wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

> Dear Git folks,
> 
> 
> (Please CC me when replying since I am not subscribed.)
> 
> I have the following use case and need an advise from you professionals.
> 
> A friend and I are writing a paper using TeX¹ and keep the files under
> revision control using Git. This works fine so far. But I want to also
> have the output (PDF) of the markup file under revision control to be
> able to access the PDF files even if for example no TeX installation is
> available on a system.
> 
> The problem now is, since the output is no plain text file, that
> merging/rebasing always shows conflicts which Git, of course, cannot
> solve.
> 
> Is there a way to set that up so that there are no conflicts? Would a
> pre-commit hook work which generates the PDF file prior to committing?
> And if no TeX installation is available it would just ignore the PDF
> files?
> 
> I could not find anything on the Web because having PDF as search string
> would just show up how to generate documentation about Git.

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.

Regards,
  Stefan

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
/dev/random says: If at first you don't succeed, work for Microsoft.