On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > The pgsql CVS, not the www CVS:
> > >
> > > $ ls pgsql/doc/src/FAQ
> > > CVS/ FAQ_DEV.html FAQ_japanese.html
> > > FAQ.html FAQ_german.html
> > >
> > > I copy them to the web directory like the platform-specific FAQ's.
> > So you renamed it to faq-dev-english... Ok. I can get that out.
> See copyfaq script for copy renames. I have one i my home directory
> that I use to copy from my local CVS while you have one too.
I'm trying to avoid renaming. Since the sites are going php I have more
> > > > I'm already getting a few things out of cvs now (TODO and flowchard are
> > > > a couple) for the developer site. WebCVS will be there whenever SOMEONE
> > > > gets around to some configuration changes I requested.
> > >
> > > TODO should not be in the www CVS either. That is generated by txt2html
> > > and I copy that to www too.
> > I'm trying to get everything as automated as possible without having to
> > depend on any one person which is why I'm going into cvs to get it. If
> > it doesn't belong in cvs, then why is it still there? More importantly
> > if it's not going to be there, where will it be? Should we put it in
> > the database?
> Not sure about TODO. I don't see it in my www CVS copy here. It is a
> funny file because it is generated from the text TODO file in the pgsql
> cvs. I can put the script I use with txt2html to generate it.
It's not in www cvs. It's in pgsql cvs. That's where I'm getting it.
I'm trying to have php use cvs to update the copy I'm about to serve up
but it's complaining so I have to look and see how I did it before.
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev(at)michvhf(dot)com http://www.pop4.net
56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com
Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-10-01 17:21:41|
|Subject: Re: Bulkloading using COPY - ignore duplicates? |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-10-01 16:58:26|
|Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL bug? |