Thread: Changelog and 7.1.3 release
Can I ask why we are mentioning the changelog for the release and not the list from the HISTORY file? Any why are we putting the changelog in the tarball anyway? Seems that could easily go on a web site. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian writes: > Can I ask why we are mentioning the changelog for the release and not > the list from the HISTORY file? Any why are we putting the changelog in > the tarball anyway? Seems that could easily go on a web site. The point of these changelogs was to show the changes between beta and rc versions, because those were not necessarily recorded in the HISTORY file. However, putting these in the tarball is questionable (if you already downloaded the tarball then you might as well proceed with installing it), still having them there now is even more questionable (who cares?), and making them for minor releases is redundant and confusing. I vote for removing them. First prize for Consistency in Naming, btw. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
Can we come to some kind of decision on this before going beta? > Bruce Momjian writes: > > > Can I ask why we are mentioning the changelog for the release and not > > the list from the HISTORY file? Any why are we putting the changelog in > > the tarball anyway? Seems that could easily go on a web site. > > The point of these changelogs was to show the changes between beta and rc > versions, because those were not necessarily recorded in the HISTORY file. > However, putting these in the tarball is questionable (if you already > downloaded the tarball then you might as well proceed with installing it), > still having them there now is even more questionable (who cares?), and > making them for minor releases is redundant and confusing. I vote for > removing them. > > First prize for Consistency in Naming, btw. > > -- > Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter > > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
> I'd suggest that the future procedure ought to be to pull a changelog > from CVS but put it beside the tarball on the FTP server, not inside > the tarball (and certainly not back into CVS --- that's redundant). When we commit the log files to CVS, don't we have to run cvs log again and commit a new version, ad infinitum. :-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
> Can we come to some kind of decision on this before going beta?
>> The point of these changelogs was to show the changes between beta and rc
>> versions, because those were not necessarily recorded in the HISTORY file.
>> However, putting these in the tarball is questionable (if you already
>> downloaded the tarball then you might as well proceed with installing it),
>> still having them there now is even more questionable (who cares?), and
>> making them for minor releases is redundant and confusing. I vote for
>> removing them.
I agree with Peter on this; I don't see much value in putting these
files into the distribution, and none at all in preserving them
indefinitely.
I'd suggest that the future procedure ought to be to pull a changelog
from CVS but put it beside the tarball on the FTP server, not inside
the tarball (and certainly not back into CVS --- that's redundant).
regards, tom lane