| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, david(at)fetter(dot)org, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: rename sgml files? |
| Date: | 2018-02-13 06:14:05 |
| Message-ID: | 7407.1518502445@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 12:58:22PM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>> My vote would be to backport the build changes to v10, which should be
>>> simple enough, and wait for 9.6 to be EOL'd before doing the rename.
>> Me too. However my concern is the tool chain. Maybe we should notice
>> packagers to prepare it?
> Definitely.
Absolutely. But part of the calculation here is that packagers who
build the docs for themselves already need to have the new toolchain
in place for v10. So it seems like it shouldn't be that hard for them
to use it for older branches as well. But yeah, if we were seriously
going to pursue back-porting the XML conversion, we'd have to poll
pgsql-packagers to see if anybody had a problem with that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-02-13 06:28:37 | Re: A space-efficient, user-friendly way to store categorical data |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-02-13 06:02:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Restrict concurrent update/delete with UPDATE of partition key |