On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> The documentation sources are now DocBook XML, not SGML. (The files are >> still named *.sgml. That's something to think about separately.) > > I think we should have a discussion about whether it'd be smart > to convert the back branches' documentation to XML as well. > > The main reason that I want to consider this is that back-patching > documentation fixes is going to be a huge problem if we don't.
Things like c29c578 and 1ff01b3 only found their way on HEAD. There is a bit of work needed here for back-branches. At the end I would vote for having consistent documentation on all active branches. > Using the same doc-building toolchain across all branches seems like a win > as well. You could argue that switching build requirements in a minor > release is unfriendly to packagers; but those who build their own docs > have already had to adapt to the xsltproc/fop toolchain for v10, so > standardizing on that for 9.3-9.6 as well doesn't seem like it complicates > their lives. (Possibly we should canvass opinions on pgsql-packagers to > be sure of that.) My own packaging is going to need some tweaks as well, but there is nothing difficult. A discussion is definitely deserved on -packagers, all don't have the same toolchain set. -- Michael
