Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (8.11.3/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f83NHO756555 for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:17:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f83NHAK11884; Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:17:10 -0400 (EDT) To: Peter Eisentraut cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Commit docbook2man? In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Thu, 30 Aug 2001 16:43:00 +0200" Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2001 19:17:10 -0400 Message-ID: <11881.999559030@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200109/7 X-Sequence-Number: 939 Peter Eisentraut writes: > Since we're slowly nearing a release, I'm already starting to hack around > the docbook2man stuff again. To produce acceptable results several > patches are required against the upstream release, and I'd like to have > those recorded somewhere, i.e., our CVS rep. That way we can get a few > more people testing the man pages before release. > Should I import the original first and then commit the patches afterwards, > or should I import the patches as separate files, or is anyone keen about > vendor branches? How big is docbook2man? I'm unenthused about adding a large chunk of code to our distribution that's just a copy of someone else's distribution. If it's only a few K of source then replicating it in our distro might make sense ... else I'd vote for just putting the required patch diffs into a README or some such file. regards, tom lane