Good point! I agree, that with API-scraping, it can work fine whether
authors work on a year-based master or a... "timeless" master repo.


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Stefan van der Walt <
notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In manual/proceedings.rst:
>
> > +  package).
> > +- Due to a bug in the Debian packaging of ``pdfannotextractor``, you may have
> > +  to execute ``pdfannotextractor --install`` to fetch the PDFBox library.
> > +
> > +Afterwards
> > +----------
> > +Split out the current year's proceedings branch into a new repository under the
> > +``scipy-conference`` organization.  This preserves the proceedings, as
> > +well as slimming down the main repository so a new paper submission doesn't
> > +require download all old proceedings.
> > +
> > +::
> > +
> > +  git checkout 20xx
> > +  git remote add 20xx_proc git@github.com:scipy-conference/scipy_proceedings_20xx
> > +  git push 20xx_proc master
>
> Ah, you have not had to face a horde of authors complaining about things
> breaking yet :) Fortunately, we had very few of those this year, but things
> in the paper building pipeline *do* break (people discover interesting
> new RST syntax every day!) The best authors send pull requests, of course
> scipy-conference/scipy_proceedings#50<https://github.com/scipy-conference/scipy_proceedings/pull/50>:)
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/scipy-conference/scipy-conference/pull/29/files#r7801808>
> .
>