Tom Lane-2 wrote
> I propose that we go over to a policy of keeping in HEAD only release
> notes for actively maintained branches, and that each back branch should
> retain notes only for branches that were actively maintained when it split
> off from HEAD. This would keep about five years worth of history in
> Appendix E, which should be a roughly stable amount of text.
+1
Given the ready web access we provide to documentation for unsupported
releases, requiring constant recompilation of static material seems
wasteful.
Maybe a release history page and a note to look at the website would be a
nice addition but removing the detailed release notes would not cause
information to be lost.
David J.
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.nabble.com/Release-note-bloat-is-getting-out-of-hand-tp5836330p5836346.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
