> 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" <scrappy@postgresql.org> 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