On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 11:10 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I propose that we go over to a policy of keeping in HEAD only release
>> notes for actively maintained branches, and that each back branch should
>> retain notes only for branches that were actively maintained when it split
>> off from HEAD. This would keep about five years worth of history in
>> Appendix E, which should be a roughly stable amount of text.
>
> -1. I find it very useful to be able to go back through all the
> release notes using grep, and have done so on multiple occasions. It
> sounds like this policy would make that harder, and I don't see what
> we get out of of it. It doesn't bother me that the SGML documentation
> of the release notes is big; disk space is cheap.
FWIW, -0.5. I think that we should keep documentation down to the
oldest version supported by binary tools, I am referring particularly
to pg_dump that supports servers down to 7.0. Such information may be
useful for a dump/restore upgrade.
--
Michael