On 11/23/17 15:39, Tom Lane wrote: > I think we should have a discussion about whether it'd be smart > to convert the back branches' documentation to XML as well.
My short answer to that is, I don't have time for that. I don't know if anyone else wants to investigate it. But it took us years to get to this point, and backpatching and back-testing all of that is just a lot of work that was not planned. Also, we will want to keep moving forward. As the title of the thread on -docs shows, some people want to move to DocBook 5. If every move like that will require backpatching everything, nobody is going to want to sign up for it anymore. > The main reason that I want to consider this is that back-patching > documentation fixes is going to be a huge problem if we don't. I understand that. I would like to think about a way, maybe a git hook or wrapper or something, to make that simpler. I haven't found any promising approach so far, however. > Using the same doc-building toolchain across all branches seems like a win > as well. You could argue that switching build requirements in a minor > release is unfriendly to packagers; but those who build their own docs > have already had to adapt to the xsltproc/fop toolchain for v10, so > standardizing on that for 9.3-9.6 as well doesn't seem like it complicates > their lives. (Possibly we should canvass opinions on pgsql-packagers to > be sure of that.) xsltproc has been required since 9.0 for the man pages, so that wouldn't be a problem. > Also, we're way overdue for getting out from under the creaky TeX-based > toolchain for producing PDFs. Makefile rules to build via FOP have been available since 9.4, so there is a backup plan there. However, there has also been a fair amount of tweaking to make things look good before switching in 10, so that would all have to be collected and analyzed. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services