Viability of text HISTORY/INSTALL/regression README files (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Document a few more regression test hazards.)

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> guaibasaurus doesn't like this patch: you need to be more careful
>> about links, because the regression instructions are supposed to
>> compile as a standalone document.

> I wonder if these standalone things are really worthwhile. The whole
> point of this, ten years ago, was that people who were trying to get
> started with PostgreSQL might not have had neither the doc toolchain
> nor convenient Internet access available. Plain text documentation
> was essential for getting off the ground. This seems much less
> relevant today; is the annoyance of not being able to use links
> everywhere really buying us anything at this point?

That's a very fair question. It's a reasonable bet that pretty much
nobody actually looks at the text versions of either HISTORY or
regress_README anymore. It's conceivable that somebody somewhere makes
use of the text version of INSTALL when trying to get PG going on some
bare-bones platform ... but really, can't they look it up on the net?
How'd they get the PG sources they're installing, anyway?

I'm prepared to believe that these things are just dinosaurs now.
However, at least in the case of the release notes, we'd have to kill them
in all active branches not only HEAD, if we don't want surprises.

Comments?

regards, tom lane