Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > The only problem with removing HISTORY from CVS is that we will not have > > > > an easily reable list of release changes _until_ we package the release. > > > > Perhaps we should keep HISTORY in CVS, but regenerate it on tarball > > > > packaging, and INSTALL too. > > > > > > Confused here, but how "up to date" is HISTORY in CVS to start with? I > > > don't go out of my way to watch for them, but commits to HISTORY don't > > > seem to be all that often to start with ... and how many ppl actually look > > > at the HISTORY file *except* at release time? > > > > Usually I modify HISTORY during beta, then move it to release.sgml, but > > I could reverse that and do edits in release.sgml then regenerate and > > copy HISTORY. It is mostly during beta. We could throw a URL into the > > HISTORY file telling people where to look for the generated release > > notes. > > I'm neither here nor there on it ... it just seems weird to include > 'derived files' in CVS that really aren't required (ie. bison stuff is > required) ... IMHO, it would be like re-generating the whole docs and > checking it into CVS ...
Agreed, it is weird. One idea would be to check a HISTORY file into CVS that contains only a link to the developer HTML docs, then overwrite it with the proper contents on tar build. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
