| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: rename sgml files? |
| Date: | 2018-02-12 21:19:48 |
| Message-ID: | 14902.1518470388@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> So, should we rename the *.sgml files to *.xml, since they are actually
> now XML files?
At that point, back-patching documentation fixes would become effectively
impossible except through manual intervention in the patching process.
I don't want to go there. The recent changes have already imposed a
significant PITA factor on generating minor-release notes, and this
would push it past what I care to deal with.
As I've remarked before, the issue would disappear if we were to
back-patch the XML-ization of the documentation. So I'd be fine
with this if we did it uniformly in the supported branches. Otherwise
I think the costs outweigh the benefits.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-12 22:03:19 | Re: Using scalar function as set-returning: bug or feature? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-02-12 20:43:49 | Re: Cancelling parallel query leads to segfault |