On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 8:18 AM, Andrew Dunstan
> <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Ideally this would be done as part of creating the new branch. Since
>> the web site doesn't have the same set of committers, a second metdata
>> repo like this seems sensible.
>> An alternative would be to create a special branch within the core
>> repo for such data, something like this (The first two lines are the
>> ones that are most important):
>>
>> git checkout --orphan metadata
>> git rm --cached -r .
>> wget https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/branches_of_interest.txt
>> git add branches_of_interest.txt
>> git commit -m 'initial content' branches_of_interest.txt
>> git push origin HEAD
>> git checkout master
>>
>> The new branch won't share any history or files with the existing branches.
>
> Seems like too much magic to me.
>
This is pretty much how GitHub's gh-pages docco mechanism works. It's
not particularly deep magic. But if it makes people uncomfortable,
let's go for a second repo. It's not worth having a huge argument
over.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
