Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 21:01:31 -0400
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
	pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Release note trimming: another modest proposal
Message-ID: <20180810010131.GB32075@momjian.us>
References: <19252.1533509841@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <fa460b8a-e581-ee7c-0118-a89f7b9e1cf9@2ndquadrant.com>
 <4817.1533858308@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4817.1533858308@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Aug  9, 2018 at 07:45:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 06/08/2018 00:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Anyway, I'd like to propose a compromise position that I don't think
> >> has been discussed before: let's drop release notes for branches
> >> that were already EOL when a given branch was released.
> 
> > Why not go further and just ship the release notes of the current major
> > version.  If you want to look at the release notes of version 11, read
> > the documentation for version 11.  Who reads the documentation of
> > version 12 to get the release notes of version 11?
> 
> Personally, I'd be OK with that, but it seemed to me that that had
> already been proposed and shot down (on the grounds of not-enough-
> history) the last time this was discussed.

We allow people to just several major versions as long as they read the
release notes of all the versions they skipped.  Shipping all active
major version release notes works for that.

Personally, I would find a git tree or tarball of all release notes in
SGML or HTML format useful.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +