Thread: PDF docs in CVS broken
Hi! PDF docs for versions 7.3 and 7.4 were added to CVS without -kb switch (binary) and thus are effectively broken. :[
On Wednesday 18 February 2004 15:06, Alexey Borzov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> PDF docs for versions 7.3 and 7.4 were added to CVS without -kb switch
> (binary) and thus are effectively broken. :[
>
Broken is a strong word, I'd just say misconfigured. Looked through my
command history on the 7.4 pdfs and noticed that the first one I uploaded I
did use -kb but when I decided to rename the file I forgot it on the second
pass (guess I should have gone to bed first...) Anywho, I *think* I have
things updated to have the -kb flag, can you confirm this on your end?
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Hi! Robert Treat wrote: >>PDF docs for versions 7.3 and 7.4 were added to CVS without -kb switch >>(binary) and thus are effectively broken. :[ > > Broken is a strong word, I'd just say misconfigured. "Broken" in the sense "couldn't be opened by Acrobat Reader". > Looked through my > command history on the 7.4 pdfs and noticed that the first one I uploaded I > did use -kb but when I decided to rename the file I forgot it on the second > pass (guess I should have gone to bed first...) Anywho, I *think* I have > things updated to have the -kb flag, can you confirm this on your end? Looks like it is OK now, at least I *can* open the docs from CVS.
Alexey Borzov wrote: > Looks like it is OK now, at least I *can* open the docs from CVS. Sorry. I can open the docs iff I get them via CVS on Linux. I can't open them if I get them on Windows, seems there is some "recoding" going on as they are not "binary". And no, PDF doc for 7.4 does not have -kb set.
stupid question, but is there a resaon why we have a PDF version of the
docs in CVS in the first place?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 February 2004 15:06, Alexey Borzov wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > PDF docs for versions 7.3 and 7.4 were added to CVS without -kb switch
> > (binary) and thus are effectively broken. :[
> >
>
> Broken is a strong word, I'd just say misconfigured. Looked through my
> command history on the 7.4 pdfs and noticed that the first one I uploaded I
> did use -kb but when I decided to rename the file I forgot it on the second
> pass (guess I should have gone to bed first...) Anywho, I *think* I have
> things updated to have the -kb flag, can you confirm this on your end?
>
> Robert Treat
> --
> Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
It's content we carry on the website, why wouldn't it be in the websites CVS
tree?
Robert Treat
On Friday 20 February 2004 15:36, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> stupid question, but is there a resaon why we have a PDF version of the
> docs in CVS in the first place?
>
> On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 February 2004 15:06, Alexey Borzov wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > PDF docs for versions 7.3 and 7.4 were added to CVS without -kb switch
> > > (binary) and thus are effectively broken. :[
> >
> > Broken is a strong word, I'd just say misconfigured. Looked through my
> > command history on the 7.4 pdfs and noticed that the first one I uploaded
> > I did use -kb but when I decided to rename the file I forgot it on the
> > second pass (guess I should have gone to bed first...) Anywho, I *think*
> > I have things updated to have the -kb flag, can you confirm this on your
> > end?
> >
> > Robert Treat
> > --
> > Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
> Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Robert Treat wrote:
> It's content we carry on the website, why wouldn't it be in the websites CVS
> tree?
Just doesn't seem like a candidate for being commited to CVS ... CVS, to
me, has always been for revision control ... the PDF is generated from the
sgml source, so I'd think that that would be the level that RevControl
would be maintained at ... with a PDF file (or any binary), there are no
"changes" from one revision to the next, so any revisions you might commit
would just check in a whole new version ...
If you look at the CVS side of things, 53Meg out of ~70Meg are the PDF
files:
gborg# du -sk www
69784 www
gborg# du -sk www/docs/pdf
53436 www/docs/pdf
That's a fair amount of space when its redundant to the sgml that its
generated by ...
> > Robert Treat
>
>
> On Friday 20 February 2004 15:36, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > stupid question, but is there a resaon why we have a PDF version of the
> > docs in CVS in the first place?
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Robert Treat wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 18 February 2004 15:06, Alexey Borzov wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > PDF docs for versions 7.3 and 7.4 were added to CVS without -kb switch
> > > > (binary) and thus are effectively broken. :[
> > >
> > > Broken is a strong word, I'd just say misconfigured. Looked through my
> > > command history on the 7.4 pdfs and noticed that the first one I uploaded
> > > I did use -kb but when I decided to rename the file I forgot it on the
> > > second pass (guess I should have gone to bed first...) Anywho, I *think*
> > > I have things updated to have the -kb flag, can you confirm this on your
> > > end?
> > >
> > > Robert Treat
> > > --
> > > Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> > >
> > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
> >
> > ----
> > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
> > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
>
> --
> Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
>
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Hmm... well, it would just seem odd that a whole section of content from the
website would not be in the repository... if someone wanted to rebuild the
site they wouldn't get those pieces, which seems odd. It also means anyone
adding pdfs has to have access to the production server to put them up...
they can't just be uploaded to CVS for everyone to pull. I guess I just
don't feel much different between these and regular image files that
generally don't change but we put in CVS. While it's true they're not likely
to change, if there is a problem with the generated file, you might replace
it with new revision...
well, anyone else want to weigh in ? should we keep the pdf's in CVS or
delete them?
Robert Treat
On Friday 20 February 2004 20:29, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Robert Treat wrote:
> > It's content we carry on the website, why wouldn't it be in the websites
> > CVS tree?
>
> Just doesn't seem like a candidate for being commited to CVS ... CVS, to
> me, has always been for revision control ... the PDF is generated from the
> sgml source, so I'd think that that would be the level that RevControl
> would be maintained at ... with a PDF file (or any binary), there are no
> "changes" from one revision to the next, so any revisions you might commit
> would just check in a whole new version ...
>
> If you look at the CVS side of things, 53Meg out of ~70Meg are the PDF
> files:
>
> gborg# du -sk www
> 69784 www
> gborg# du -sk www/docs/pdf
> 53436 www/docs/pdf
>
> That's a fair amount of space when its redundant to the sgml that its
> generated by ...
>
> > > Robert Treat
> >
> > On Friday 20 February 2004 15:36, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > stupid question, but is there a resaon why we have a PDF version of the
> > > docs in CVS in the first place?
> > >
> > > On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Robert Treat wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 18 February 2004 15:06, Alexey Borzov wrote:
> > > > > Hi!
> > > > >
> > > > > PDF docs for versions 7.3 and 7.4 were added to CVS without -kb
> > > > > switch (binary) and thus are effectively broken. :[
> > > >
> > > > Broken is a strong word, I'd just say misconfigured. Looked through
> > > > my command history on the 7.4 pdfs and noticed that the first one I
> > > > uploaded I did use -kb but when I decided to rename the file I forgot
> > > > it on the second pass (guess I should have gone to bed first...)
> > > > Anywho, I *think* I have things updated to have the -kb flag, can you
> > > > confirm this on your end?
> > > >
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
> -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Treat [mailto:xzilla@users.sourceforge.net] > Sent: 21 February 2004 14:41 > To: Marc G. Fournier > Cc: Alexey Borzov; pgsql-www@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] PDF docs in CVS broken > > well, anyone else want to weigh in ? should we keep the > pdf's in CVS or delete them? Keep them. Before long I intend to have the whole site building from CVS so none of us need to work in the live area. Regards, Dave.