Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Docs refreshed

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Postgres Hackers List <hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Docs refreshed
Date: 2000-04-02 21:33:12
Message-ID: 8484.954711192@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Also don't put them in the CVS tree. They're just wasting space since
> they're out of date and not really useful for developers.

> In the same spirit I'd suggest not including the html tars in the CVS tree
> either.

It's really pretty silly to have tar.gz files in the CVS tree.  I can
imagine what the underlying diff looks like every time they are updated
:-(.  And, since they are ultimately just derived files, I agree with
Peter that they shouldn't be in CVS at all.

They should, however, be in release tarballs.

> In the distribution I would like to have them *untarred* so users
> can browse them before/without installing.

Doesn't matter a whole lot; you can untar them yourself if you want
to do that.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2000-04-02 21:37:43
Subject: Re: Call for porting reports
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-04-02 21:18:55
Subject: Re: Call for porting reports

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group