Re: CVS in docs

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:25, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Uh, why only back to 8.2?

> Based on the "the others are discontinued just over a month from now anyway"...

Yeah, but they will each have a final release.  Don't we want to have
the updated info in the final releases?  I don't care about the
incidental CVS mentions, but replacing cvs.sgml with that new chapter
seems worth the trouble.

> BTW, there are a ton of conflicts backpatching each step.

Welcome to the fun of back-patching.  Did you get any leverage from
cherry-picking, or did it seem to be just as stupid as plain "patch"?

            regards, tom lane