From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org,
 pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Viability of text HISTORY/INSTALL/regression README
 files (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Document a few more regression test
 hazards.)
In-reply-to: <52F58CE8.4090902@gmx.net>
References: <E1WALm6-0000nT-M0@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <22438.1391463522@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+Tgmob0Jx_9v9KK95gojkjojeP2hTa38_P8JtOFXVDjjSkT=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <28834.1391478486@sss.pgh.pa.us> <52F58CE8.4090902@gmx.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
 message dated "Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:48:24 -0500"
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2014 01:05:31 -0500
Message-ID: <18083.1391839531@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On 2/3/14, 8:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's a very fair question.  It's a reasonable bet that pretty much
>> nobody actually looks at the text versions of either HISTORY or
>> regress_README anymore.  It's conceivable that somebody somewhere makes
>> use of the text version of INSTALL when trying to get PG going on some
>> bare-bones platform ... but really, can't they look it up on the net?
>> How'd they get the PG sources they're installing, anyway?

> I think having an INSTALL file is good form, and it costs us little to
> maintain it.

> The other files could be removed, IMO.

That seems like a reasonable compromise to me.  The HISTORY file is
certainly the worst pain-in-the-rear among these, since it's generated
from files that we change constantly, and so we're always tripping over
the link restrictions.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs