Tom Lane-2 wrote > I propose that we go over to a policy of keeping in HEAD only release > notes for actively maintained branches, and that each back branch should > retain notes only for branches that were actively maintained when it split > off from HEAD. This would keep about five years worth of history in > Appendix E, which should be a roughly stable amount of text.
+1 Given the ready web access we provide to documentation for unsupported releases, requiring constant recompilation of static material seems wasteful. Maybe a release history page and a note to look at the website would be a nice addition but removing the detailed release notes would not cause information to be lost. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.nabble.com/Release-note-bloat-is-getting-out-of-hand-tp5836330p5836346.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
