| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Release note bloat is getting out of hand |
| Date: | 2015-02-04 21:23:46 |
| Message-ID: | 54D28DE2.9010800@gmx.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/3/15 11:53 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> Note also that you only need to present the release notes from the
>> latest stable release branch on the web site, as opposed to
>> documentation for each branch.
>
> Yeah, JD suggested the same upthread. If we went over to a separate
> document containing all the historical notes, then it would make sense
> for the main documentation to contain only release notes for the current
> branch, which would further reduce its build time. My thread-starting
> proposal of keeping the last five branches was based on the assumption
> that we didn't need any whole-history document, but if we're keeping one
> separately then this seems to make the most sense.
I think that's not what I was trying to say. My proposal would be to
leave the source code in each branch exactly the same, but redefine the
documentation build to build two separate documents: one with the
documentation without any release notes, and one with all the release notes.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-02-04 21:41:30 | Re: Redesigning checkpoint_segments |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-02-04 21:21:29 | Re: binworld and install-binworld targets - was Re: Release note bloat is getting out of hand |