X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 767A19DC870;
	Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:23:34 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 00835-09; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:23:37 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-
Received: from trolak.mydnsbox2.com (ns1.mydnsbox2.com [207.44.142.118])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F7769DC879;
	Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:23:31 -0400 (AST)
Received: from dunslane.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	(authenticated (0 bits))
	by trolak.mydnsbox2.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k0HCga803958;
	Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:42:37 -0600
Received: from 24.211.165.134
	(SquirrelMail authenticated user andrew@dunslane.net)
	by www.dunslane.net with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:42:39 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <1094.24.211.165.134.1137501759.squirrel@www.dunslane.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 06:42:39 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] source documentation tool doxygen
From: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: <joe@mcknight.de>
In-Reply-To: <20060117112137.GC2672@mcknight.de>
References: <20060117112137.GC2672@mcknight.de>
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Cc: <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>, <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>,
	<pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	<jgardner@jonathangardner.net>
X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.5)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.083 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083]
X-Spam-Score: 0.083
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200601/206
X-Sequence-Number: 9394

Joachim Wieland said:
> Do you want to put it on the postgresql.org site nevertheless? Is it
> too big to be mirrored and should be recreated on every webserver? We
> might need one copy for the last version of every major release as well
> as one for cvs. The latter should get updated regularly of course but I
> figure it would be sufficient to do that once a week...
>


The overwhelming amount of development work gets done against HEAD. I would
start with a once a day run against HEAD, and possibly one against the
latest stable branch (currently REL8_1_STABLE in cvs). That would get you
99% of the possible benefit, I think. I don't see any virtue in doing it
against a release as opposed to a stable branch - this is to help
development efforts so it should be against what people should be basing
their development efforts on.


cheers

andrew