Re: CVS in docs

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:37, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:25, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Uh, why only back to 8.2?
>
>> Based on the "the others are discontinued just over a month from now anyway"...
>
> Yeah, but they will each have a final release.  Don't we want to have
> the updated info in the final releases?  I don't care about the
> incidental CVS mentions, but replacing cvs.sgml with that new chapter
> seems worth the trouble.

Hmm. yeah. I'll look at doing it back to 7.4 then. I'll do the
incidental mentions as well if they merge cleanly :-)

>> BTW, there are a ton of conflicts backpatching each step.
>
> Welcome to the fun of back-patching.  Did you get any leverage from

Oh, it's not the first time. I just wanted to make note that one, but
only one, conflicted on the $PostgreSQL$ tag.

> cherry-picking, or did it seem to be just as stupid as plain "patch"?

It *seemed* smarter. But I didn't try to backpatchthe same thing both
ways, so it's hard to tell for sure.

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