On 01.07.18 17:41, Tom Lane wrote: > I can see the value of people other than you being able to change it, > but keeping it in the core repo seems like a kluge not a proper solution. > In particular, once it'd been around for awhile so that the master copy > had diverged from the back branches' copies, that would be pretty > confusing IMO.
Yeah, I'd find this kind of weird. The version control system contains the code, not the other way around. > Is it worth the trouble of having a separate repo for info that shouldn't > be tied to a particular PG development branch? I'm not quite sure what > else we would keep there besides this file, but perhaps other use-cases > will come up. Some of the stuff in src/tools/ has a bit of this flavor.
The web site has some information about which versions are current, so maybe there is an opportunity to hook the buildfarm in there.
(I also have to change some things on babel.postgresql.org every time a branch is made.)
We could definitely do that on the website, if people think that's the easiest.
We could also set up a separate git repository with exactly the same set of committers as the main one (but only use the master branch there) as one option. The maintenance cost of doing so would be very close to zero as we have all the infrastructure for it already. so it'd be more about which one is more convenient to use.