Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F93B633083 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:28:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07535-06 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:28:26 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F6A632A2C for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:28:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3PJSk37023942 for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:28:46 -0400 (EDT) To: pgsql-docs@postgreSQL.org Subject: Splitting up release.sgml Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:28:46 -0400 Message-ID: <23941.1240687726@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.163 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.163 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200904/50 X-Sequence-Number: 5138 (I'm sure this has come up before, but it hasn't got done for some reason...) I think it's time for $SUBJECT. release.sgml is growing at a rate of several thousand lines per major release and several hundred for each group of minor releases. It's getting to be a pain to edit, and I don't even want to think about how large the underlying RCS file must be. This clearly doesn't scale for the long term. 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. 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. 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.) Thoughts? regards, tom lane