Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > > 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.
> > > > Perhaps we should keep HISTORY in CVS, but regenerate it on tarball
> > > > packaging, and INSTALL too.
> > >
> > > Confused here, but how "up to date" is HISTORY in CVS to start with? I
> > > don't go out of my way to watch for them, but commits to HISTORY don't
> > > seem to be all that often to start with ... and how many ppl actually look
> > > at the HISTORY file *except* at release time?
> >
> > Usually I modify HISTORY during beta, then move it to release.sgml, but
> > I could reverse that and do edits in release.sgml then regenerate and
> > copy HISTORY. It is mostly during beta. We could throw a URL into the
> > HISTORY file telling people where to look for the generated release
> > notes.
>
> I'm neither here nor there on it ... it just seems weird to include
> 'derived files' in CVS that really aren't required (ie. bison stuff is
> required) ... IMHO, it would be like re-generating the whole docs and
> checking it into CVS ...
Agreed, it is weird. One idea would be to check a HISTORY file into CVS
that contains only a link to the developer HTML docs, then overwrite it
with the proper contents on tar build.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073