2009/11/26 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: >> I assume you are fine with the addition of some info about git, but >> what about the removal of those two chapters suggested? > > I agree that we needn't try to cover material that's in the CVS manual. > As somebody mentioned upthread, a sentence or two about our branching > and tagging conventions would be a lot more useful.
Here's an updated patch that does what I believe the consensus of this thread was. Unless objected, I will commit this later tonight. Patch now does: * As before, update cvs documentation and add git documentation * Remove cvsup documentation * Remove cvs internal documentation * Add a link to appendix H (the source code repository) from the general getting the source chapter. It does not add any proper documentation of exactly how we deal with branches and tags at a useful level - this will come later. I would also like to propose that we actually backpatch this. At least the addition of the git documentation and the update of the CVS documentation. So we get this info out there. We don't normally backpatch things like this though, so comments on that? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
cvs_docs.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
