On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I propose that we go over to a policy of keeping in HEAD only release >> notes for actively maintained branches, and that each back branch should >> retain notes only for branches that were actively maintained when it split >> off from HEAD. This would keep about five years worth of history in >> Appendix E, which should be a roughly stable amount of text. > > -1. I find it very useful to be able to go back through all the > release notes using grep, and have done so on multiple occasions. It > sounds like this policy would make that harder, and I don't see what > we get out of of it. It doesn't bother me that the SGML documentation > of the release notes is big; disk space is cheap. FWIW, -0.5. I think that we should keep documentation down to the oldest version supported by binary tools, I am referring particularly to pg_dump that supports servers down to 7.0. Such information may be useful for a dump/restore upgrade. -- Michael
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
