Include PS images for docs in releases #6533
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Seems to work. I notice the tar ball has both PS and PNG files, e.g. I guess this is intentional since the png supports to html tree while the PS file is there for building it. |
PaulWessel
approved these changes
Apr 8, 2022
|
This can be merge, right? |
4 tasks
4 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of proposed changes
In past GMT releases, users could build the documentation from the source tarballs because the .PS files were included in the
doc/examplesanddoc/scriptsdirectories. This PR maintains that option for future releases by copying thedoc/examples/imagesanddoc/scripts/imagesdirectories to the release directory.Supersedes #6473, which tried to solve the problem by generating the images directly. I think this PR is better because it is simpler and therefore easier to maintain. While #6473 worked for me locally, it failed to work in the CI due to issues finding dcw and the supplement modules.
Whereas #6473 would have provided an option for building the docs either from a git clone or the releases without DVC, this PR only applies to the releases. To build the docs from a git clone, users will still need to install dvc and run dvc pull first.
Relates to #5724, #6356