| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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 they're out of date and not really useful for developers.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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-04-02 21:37:43 | Re: Call for porting reports |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-04-02 21:18:55 | Re: Call for porting reports |