From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josef Šimánek <josef(dot)simanek(at)gmail(dot)com>, samay sharma <smilingsamay(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tim McNamara <tim(at)mcnamara(dot)nz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: New developer papercut - Makefile references INSTALL |
Date: | 2022-01-21 22:25:08 |
Message-ID: | 1287480.1642803908@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> It seems quite workable to continue for INSTALL to be generated, but have the
> result checked in. The rate of changes to {installation,install-windows}.sgml
> isn't that high, and when things change, it's actually useful to be able to
> see the current instructions from a console.
> Might even be good to be forced to see the text version of INSTALL when
> changing the sgml docs...
Not sure about that, because
(1) if done wrong, it'd make it impossible to commit into the
docs unless you have a working docs toolchain on your machine,
whether you wanted to touch installation.sgml or not;
(2) we'd inevitably get a lot of diff noise because of different
committers having different versions of the docs toolchain.
(Unlike configure, trying to require uniformity of those tools
seems quite impractical.)
Perhaps this could be finessed by making updating of INSTALL
the responsibility of some post-commit hook on the git server.
Not sure that we want to go there, though. In any case, that
approach would negate your point about seeing the results.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-01-21 22:26:32 | Re: fairywren is generating bogus BASE_BACKUP commands |
Previous Message | Kenaniah Cerny | 2022-01-21 22:12:25 | Re: Proposal: allow database-specific role memberships |