Re: Release note bloat is getting out of hand - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Release note bloat is getting out of hand
Date
Msg-id 22895.1422941532@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Release note bloat is getting out of hand  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: Release note bloat is getting out of hand
Re: Release note bloat is getting out of hand
List pgsql-hackers
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> On 02/02/2015 05:39 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I share the sentiment that the release notes *seem* too big, but the
>> subsequent discussion shows that it's not clear why that's really a
>> problem.  Exactly what problem are we trying to fix?

> At a rough count of lines, the release notes for unsupported versions
> are about 18% of documentation overall (47K out of 265K lines).  So
> they're not insubstantial.  Compared to the total size of the tarball,
> though ...

It would not make that much of a difference in tarball size, agreed.
It *would* make a difference in the build time and output size of the
SGML docs --- as I mentioned at the outset, the release notes currently
account for 25% of the SGML source linecount.

Now, that's probably still only marginally a problem, but my real
point is that this is not sustainable.  The release notes are growing
faster than the rest of the docs.  This isn't so obvious if you compare
adjacent release branches, but over a slightly longer timescale it is.
A quick "wc -l" in my current git checkouts gives

Release        release-*.sgml    all .sgml    Percent

8.3        37770        204060        18.5
9.0        59318        250493        23.7
HEAD        85672        336874        25.4

We can stick our heads in the sand for awhile longer yet, but
eventually this is going to have to be dealt with.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Hot Standby WAL reply uses heavyweight session locks, but doesn't have enough infrastructure set up
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench -f and vacuum