On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 09:00, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On tis, 2010-09-28 at 02:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
> Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>
>
> I just made a pass through the wiki cleaning up all of the outdated CVS
> related stuff I knew of there that this page was pointing to. It's a
> sequential group of 9 changes to revert if we're forsaken and somehow
> this conversion stops. Main thing left with obsolete info is
> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/cvs.html
>
>
> Hrm, that page shouldn't even exist anymore. Peter?
>
>
> I've changed the doc build to use rsync so that orphaned files get
> deleted.
>
>
> That one is fixed. Doesn't look like the incoming path from the main
> postgresql.org page is completely sorted out yet though now that I check
> that too. If people start at http://www.postgresql.org/developer/coding and
> click "Information about the Source Code Repository", they'll head to
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/git.html - good so far - but
> clicking on "Up" from there goes to the 9.0
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/cvs.html still, suggesting the
> official repo is the CVS one.
>
> Not sure if that is just cached stuff on the static pages that Peter's rsync
> change will clear eventually too, or if that's a final piece that needs a
> backport to fix.
No.
Peters rsync changes only affects the developer docs. The ones you are
looking at are the 9.0.0 docs. They are "stuck" at 9.0.0 until we
release 9.0.1, which is when they'll pick up the new text about the
git repo.
If we hadn't scheduled a 9.0.1 release fairly soon I'd look at somehow
getting that back in the old version, but given that we have, it's
just more work than it's worth (the docs handling on the website is
not very nice at this point - something that's being worked on)
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
