Re: cvs chapters in our docs

On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 04:08:28PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 2009/11/26 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> > Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)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?

+1 for back-patching.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate