From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com>, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Release note trimming: another modest proposal
In-reply-to: <20180809012707.GA9533@momjian.us>
References: <19252.1533509841@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAKt_ZfsDqo-yjYZbGFvuCfm7DPeqCyDFP5vvam125PzpzVr6yw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180809012707.GA9533@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Wed, 08 Aug 2018 21:27:07 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <27417.1533782131.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2018 22:35:31 -0400
Message-ID: <27418.1533782131@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Works for me, though, is there no interest in keeping the SGML files in
> the git tree and just not building them as docs?

Yeah, I thought about that alternative, but I'm not sure I see the
percentage.  It'd bloat the tarballs compared to removing them,
and for what?

Another point that's bothered me a bit is that we're failing to keep
the historical notes historical.  Every so often, somebody decides
they need to run around and fix misspellings or whatever, and they
do it to the old notes as well as stuff that's current.  To me that
goes against every principle of archiving.  Taking old notes files
out of the tree once we've stopped updating them would at least put
a limit on how long they're exposed to historical revisionism.

			regards, tom lane