Re: cvs chapters in our docs

2009/11/26 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> I assume you are fine with the addition of some info about git, but
>> what about the removal of those two chapters suggested?
>
> I agree that we needn't try to cover material that's in the CVS manual.
> As somebody mentioned upthread, a sentence or two about our branching
> and tagging conventions would be a lot more useful.

Here's an updated patch that does what I believe the consensus of this
thread was. Unless objected, I will commit this later tonight. Patch
now does:

* As before, update cvs documentation and add git documentation
* Remove cvsup documentation
* Remove cvs internal documentation
* Add a link to appendix H (the source code repository) from the
general getting the source chapter.

It does not add any proper documentation of exactly how we deal with
branches and tags at a useful level - this will come later.

I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least
the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS
documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally
backpatch things like this though, so comments on that?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/