Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > On 02/02/2015 07:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> The last 5 branches only takes us back to 9.0, which isn't very far. >> I would want to have at least the 8.x branches in the SGML build, and >> maybe the 7.x branches as well. I would be happy to drop anything >> pre-7.x from the docs build and just let the people who care look at >> the SGML. You seem to be assuming that nobody spends much time >> looking at the release notes for older branches, but that is certainly >> false in my own case.
> I was suggesting having a separate "historical release notes" tarball, > actually. If that's in SGML, and can be built using our doc tools, we > haven't lost anything and we've reduced the size of the distribution > tarball. That was pretty much my point as well. Sure, we can keep all the notes online somewhere; that doesn't mean they have to be in the standard distribution tarball, nor in the standard documentation build. > One of the things I've been tinkering with for a while is a better > searchable version of the release notes. The problem I keep running > into is that it's very difficult to write an error-free importer from > the present SGML file; there's just too much variation in how certain > things are recorded, and SGML just isn't a database import format. The existing release notes are not conveniently searchable, for sure; they're not in a single file, and they don't show up on a single page on the Web, and I've never seen a PDF-searching tool that didn't suck. So I'm bemused by Robert's insistence that he wants that format to support searches. As I said, I find it far more convenient to search the output of "git log" and/or src/tools/git_changelog --- I keep text files of those around for exactly that purpose. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers