Re: Org + git branches for derived files

[Rob Sargent]

> On Aug 15, 2021, at 7:02 PM, Ken Mankoff <mankoff@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Thank you for the suggestions.
> 
> I think the most elegant solution is to have a hook on GitHub that compiles 
> the PDF on a remote server. But it takes a lot more work, because I don't 
> necessarily have *everything* in Git - my local 'library.bib' usually isn't 
> included, nor my custom emacs config, latexmkrc, etc. 
> 
> I'd just like the compiled PDF easily readable by anyone, but I don't want 
> 100s of historical copies.
> 
> There are a few solutions.
> 
> 1) Maintain a branch with the 'no-history' files. When they need to be 
> updated, commit and amend, then force-push. See 
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22824922/git-commit-and-push-a-binary-file-but-dont-keep-history
> 
> 2) Add the 'no-history' files to their own commit in the main branch. When 
> they need to be updated, make a new commit and rebase/fixup from the previous 
> commit. See 
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12964145/how-to-config-git-to-overwrite-non-text-file-instead-of-version-controlled-it
> 
>  -k.
Just to be clear, one is not required to use automated tools to generate the 
artifacts. They may be added manually. However, they are not typically retained 
forever so your own separate report may better suit your needs. 
>