Hello,
28.11.2017 20:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On 11/23/17 15:39, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think we should have a discussion about whether it'd be smart
>>> to convert the back branches' documentation to XML as well.
>> My short answer to that is, I don't have time for that. I don't know if
>> anyone else wants to investigate it. But it took us years to get to
>> this point, and backpatching and back-testing all of that is just a lot
>> of work that was not planned.
> I thought that might be your answer :-(. I can't argue with it ---
> if it's not a simple thing to back-patch, then it's unclear whether
> the net annoyance over the next five years would be enough to justify
> doing the work.
I can prepare such patches (scripts to generate them). In fact we
(Postgres Pro) perform such conversion (SGML->XML) on-fly when building
docs starting from 9.6. So it's not problem to convert *.sgml and
replace Makefile and *.xsl.
But I would prefer to perform the conversion when we finish the move on
11devel (renaming sgml to xml, maybe optimizing xsl's...).
Best regards,
------
Alexander Lakhin
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
