On Wednesday, 23 November 2011 16:19:22 UTC-5, Guenter Milde wrote: > > You might try with a "condotional include" directive like > > .. only:: ... > .. include:: foo.txt > I tried that, and it didn't seem to work as I expected it to. I wondered whether the fact that include-ed file had contents structural elements in it (i.e .sections and such) was causing issues. I will investigate that more.
> > The right answer might very well be much more simply done with N > different > > conf files, N different "contents" files, and a cunningly structured > source > > tree to minimize duplication of source outside the conf and contents > > files... 8( > > Maybe a version control system with good support for branches (git, ...)? > Depending on how one likes to work, yes, that would be one way to go. In my case, I'd prefer to have a single source file that can support multiple build outputs so that I can account for the relatively small build variants I need to all while editing a single set of source, and then use a build script to mux it into all the built output I need. But if you have widely variant branches of content, or have to support many different kinds skewed by kind, content, or time (i.e. you have to support a 1.0 version of content at the same time as the 4.0 content), then I agree, a solidly branching version control system is probably a good thing to look into. -- Viktor Haag -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sphinx-dev" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sphinx-dev/-/fgP9LgefJQcJ. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sphinx-dev?hl=en.
