Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 11/23/17 15:39, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we should have a discussion about whether it'd be smart
>> to convert the back branches' documentation to XML as well.
> My short answer to that is, I don't have time for that. I don't know if
> anyone else wants to investigate it. But it took us years to get to
> this point, and backpatching and back-testing all of that is just a lot
> of work that was not planned.
I thought that might be your answer :-(. I can't argue with it ---
if it's not a simple thing to back-patch, then it's unclear whether
the net annoyance over the next five years would be enough to justify
doing the work.
>> The main reason that I want to consider this is that back-patching
>> documentation fixes is going to be a huge problem if we don't.
> I understand that. I would like to think about a way, maybe a git hook
> or wrapper or something, to make that simpler. I haven't found any
> promising approach so far, however.
One thing we'd definitely better do is enable some buildfarm coverage.
AFAIK, the only buildfarm animal that's building the docs is guaibasaurus,
and it only seems to be doing that on HEAD. Since this has considerably
increased the risks of back-patching creating busted docs in the back
branches, we'd better spin up some back-branch testing as well.
regards, tom lane