pá 21. 1. 2022 v 16:31 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
>
> =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zZWYgxaBpbcOhbmVr?= <josef.simanek@gmail.com> writes:
> > There is README.git explaining this. README itself is meant to be used
> > for distributed source code. You can generate INSTALL locally for
> > example by running make dist (INSTALL will be present in
> > postgresql-15devel directory).
>
> > Anyway I do agree this is confusing. Maybe we can actually rename
> > README.git to README and current README to README.dist or similar.
> > README.dist can be copied to distribution package as README during
> > Makefile magic.
>
> IIRC, we discussed that when README.git was invented, and concluded
> that it would just create different sorts of confusion. I might
> be biased, as the person who is generally checking created tarballs
> for sanity, but I really do not want any situation where a file
> appearing in the tarball is different from the same-named file in
> the git tree.
>
> Perhaps it could be sane to not have *any* file named README in
> the git tree, only README.git and README.dist, with the tarball
> preparation process copying README.dist to README. However,
> if I'm understanding what github does, that would leave us with
> no automatically-displayed documentation for the github repo.
> So I'm not sure that helps with samay's concern.
Especially for GitHub use-case it is possible to add separate readme
into .github directory. But the problem with local clone will not be
solved anyway.
From GitHub docs:
"If you put your README file in your repository's root, docs, or
hidden .github directory, GitHub will recognize and automatically
surface your README to repository visitors."
Another solution would be to merge both README files together and make
separate section for development/git based codebase.
> regards, tom lane
