On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > The only problem with removing HISTORY from CVS is that we will not have
> > > an easily reable list of release changes _until_ we package the release.
> > > Perhaps we should keep HISTORY in CVS, but regenerate it on tarball
> > > packaging, and INSTALL too.
> >
> > Confused here, but how "up to date" is HISTORY in CVS to start with? I
> > don't go out of my way to watch for them, but commits to HISTORY don't
> > seem to be all that often to start with ... and how many ppl actually look
> > at the HISTORY file *except* at release time?
>
> Usually I modify HISTORY during beta, then move it to release.sgml, but
> I could reverse that and do edits in release.sgml then regenerate and
> copy HISTORY. It is mostly during beta. We could throw a URL into the
> HISTORY file telling people where to look for the generated release
> notes.
I'm neither here nor there on it ... it just seems weird to include
'derived files' in CVS that really aren't required (ie. bison stuff is
required) ... IMHO, it would be like re-generating the whole docs and
checking it into CVS ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
