> 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.
Nonsense. Point 'em to http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/release.html >> Perhaps we should keep HISTORY in CVS, but regenerate it on tarball >> packaging, and INSTALL too. It's really bogus to have two versions of the same information in CVS. If we simply agreed that the SGML versions are the masters, we could keep those up-to-date, and generate the plain-text versions whenever a tarball is rolled. "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Confused here, but how "up to date" is HISTORY in CVS to start with? One reason it's not is the confusion over which version is the master. Last cycle, Peter encouraged people to add quick-and-dirty release notes into release.sgml when important changes are made, and I thought that worked pretty well. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(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
