Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A8716324DD for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2009 04:09:44 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74175-07 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2009 04:09:16 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sd-2317.dedibox.fr (sd-2317.dedibox.fr [88.191.17.192]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61AE6323FA for ; Sun, 26 Apr 2009 04:08:19 -0300 (ADT) Received: from laptop.localnet (ASte-Genev-Bois-153-1-50-139.w81-249.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.249.144.139]) by sd-2317.dedibox.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2442B29B5; Sun, 26 Apr 2009 09:08:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Guillaume Lelarge To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Splitting up release.sgml Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 09:08:15 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.1 (Linux/2.6.27-14-generic; KDE/4.2.1; i686; ; ) Cc: Tom Lane References: <23941.1240687726@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <23941.1240687726@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200904260908.16053.guillaume@lelarge.info> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200904/51 X-Sequence-Number: 5139 Le samedi 25 avril 2009 =E0 21:28:46, Tom Lane a =E9crit : > [...] > What I propose we do is: > > Create a separate file for each major release branch, eg > release-8.3.sgml for the 8.3.x series. This will contain exactly > the ... material that is currently in release.sgml > for that branch. > I completely agree. This huge file is also really painful for translators.= =20 Splitting it will make the job easier. > It's probably not worth carrying out the above split back beyond 8.0. > I suggest throwing 7.4 and all prior branches into one file > release-old.sgml. > I would have included 7.4 branch in this, but that's not really a big issue. > This will leave release.sgml containing just the chapter header > material and include directives for the release-xxx.sgml files. > In the future it will change only to add a new include line > when a new major branch is started. > > I propose making this change in the active back branches, not only HEAD. > This will mean that the process for updating back-branch release notes > reduces to copying the appropriate release-xxx.sgml files into each > older branch; we won't need the major_release_split script, which is > rather dangerous because it doesn't understand that the header material > has to be different in the oldest branches. (In this scheme, the link > difference is still located in the release.sgml file, but that doesn't > change anymore in back branches so there's no risk of overwriting it.) > I'm also OK with this. =2D-=20 Guillaume. http://www.postgresqlfr.org http://dalibo.com