>> It's unfortunate that we'll have to deal with different formats in the
>> supported branches for several more years, but we at Postgres Professional
>> are
>> ready to accept any your decision on this matter for now.
>
> I had not thought of translations, but wouldn't all translations also
> n
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 04:46:24PM +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote:
> 20.06.2018 15:03, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:48:47AM +0300, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
>
> It's unfortunate that we'll have to deal with different formats in the
> supported branches for
20.06.2018 15:03, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:48:47AM +0300, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
>> It's unfortunate that we'll have to deal with different formats in the
>> supported branches for several more years, but we at Postgres Professional
>> are
>> ready to accept any your dec
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:48:47AM +0300, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
> To complete the picture of possible issues with older branches in XML, we
> posted a question in packager lists some time ago and didn't receive any
> objections. Just to keep record of all related questions in one place, here's
>
On 04/27/2018 06:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:00:36AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
That proposal seemed to indicate not only converting the source code to
XML but also the build system to XSL. The latter is out of the
question, I think.
Why is tha
Hi Peter,
Thank you for taking your time to comment on this long-discussed topic.
I was not around when all the great work was done to implement XSLT
transforms in branch 10 and convert branch 11 to XML, but judging by
this thread
(https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/4ffd72d6-8ab6-37c6-
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 03:20:44PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/27/18 11:03, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:00:36AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> On 4/23/18 05:54, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
> >>> Reading this thread, I got an impression that everyone would benefit
On 4/27/18 11:03, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:00:36AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 4/23/18 05:54, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
>>> Reading this thread, I got an impression that everyone would benefit
>>> from converting back branches to XML, but the main concern is lack of
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:00:36AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> That proposal seemed to indicate not only converting the source code to
>> XML but also the build system to XSL. The latter is out of the
>> question, I think.
> Why is that? I thought people building c
On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:00:36AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 4/23/18 05:54, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
> > Reading this thread, I got an impression that everyone would benefit
> > from converting back branches to XML, but the main concern is lack of
> > resources to complete this task. Are
On 4/23/18 05:54, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
> Reading this thread, I got an impression that everyone would benefit
> from converting back branches to XML, but the main concern is lack of
> resources to complete this task. Are there any other issues that affect
> this decision? Looks like Aleksander
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 12:54:40PM +0300, Liudmila Mantrova wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Reading this thread, I got an impression that everyone would benefit from
> converting back branches to XML, but the main concern is lack of resources to
> complete this task. Are there any other issues that affe
Hi everyone,
Reading this thread, I got an impression that everyone would benefit
from converting back branches to XML, but the main concern is lack of
resources to complete this task. Are there any other issues that affect
this decision? Looks like Aleksander Lakhin's offer to prepare patches
On 1/24/18 09:45, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> So we are not
> using TeX anymore for PG11+ docs?
as of PG10
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 04:53:57PM +0100, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:49:38AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > David, Alvaro,
> >
> > * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote:
> > > David Fetter wrote:
> > >
> > > > Speaking of legacy things, do we want to see about de
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:49:38AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> David, Alvaro,
>
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote:
> > David Fetter wrote:
> >
> > > Speaking of legacy things, do we want to see about deprecating
> > > LaTeX output for tables in psql? I haven't seen such a thin
David, Alvaro,
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
>
> > Speaking of legacy things, do we want to see about deprecating LaTeX
> > output for tables in psql? I haven't seen such a thing in production,
> > but maybe I'm missing something important.
>
> I've use
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 10:06:49AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > David Fetter wrote:
> >> Speaking of legacy things, do we want to see about deprecating LaTeX
> >> output for tables in psql? I haven't seen such a thing in production,
> >> but maybe I'm missing something impo
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> David Fetter wrote:
>> Speaking of legacy things, do we want to see about deprecating LaTeX
>> output for tables in psql? I haven't seen such a thing in production,
>> but maybe I'm missing something important.
> I've used it to prepare slides with the Beamer package. I
David Fetter wrote:
> Speaking of legacy things, do we want to see about deprecating LaTeX
> output for tables in psql? I haven't seen such a thing in production,
> but maybe I'm missing something important.
I've used it to prepare slides with the Beamer package. It's not a
thing I do all that
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 11:16:23PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > On Tuesday, January 23, 2018, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> All agreed, but what alternatives are being developed?
>
> > I seem to recall a proposal a while back to gain margin on some of
> > the limits by pr
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 08:21:21AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/23/18 22:24, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> I like TeX as much as the next guy --- I wrote my thesis with it,
> >> a long time ago --- but there's no denying that (a) it's got hard
> >> limits we're approaching, (b) the downstream
On 1/23/18 22:24, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I like TeX as much as the next guy --- I wrote my thesis with it,
>> a long time ago --- but there's no denying that (a) it's got hard
>> limits we're approaching, (b) the downstream conversion to PDF is
>> buggy, and (c) nobody is working on fixing it.
>
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Tuesday, January 23, 2018, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> All agreed, but what alternatives are being developed?
> I seem to recall a proposal a while back to gain margin on some of the
> limits by pruning the release notes section down to at least this century
> and ar
On Tuesday, January 23, 2018, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:22:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> (a) it's got hard
> > limits we're approaching,
> All agreed, but what alternatives are being developed?
>
>
I seem to recall a proposal a while back to gain margin on some of the
l
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:22:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:39:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Also, we're way overdue for getting out from under the creaky TeX-based
> >> toolchain for producing PDFs.
>
> > I am coming in late here, but I am
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:39:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, we're way overdue for getting out from under the creaky TeX-based
>> toolchain for producing PDFs.
> I am coming in late here, but I am not aware of any open source
> professional typesetting software that
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 05:25:30PM -0800, Joshua Drake wrote:
> On 01/23/2018 04:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:39:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>Also, we're way overdue for getting out from under the creaky TeX-based
> >>toolchain for producing PDFs. Every time we make
On 01/23/2018 04:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:39:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Also, we're way overdue for getting out from under the creaky TeX-based
toolchain for producing PDFs. Every time we make releases, I worry
whether we're going to get blindsided by its bugs wit
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:39:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, we're way overdue for getting out from under the creaky TeX-based
> toolchain for producing PDFs. Every time we make releases, I worry
> whether we're going to get blindsided by its bugs with hotlinks that get
> split across pages,
Hello,
28.11.2017 20:06, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
On 11/23/17 15:39, Tom Lane wrote:
I think we should have a discussion about whether it'd be smart
to convert the back branches' documentation to XML as well.
My short answer to that is, I don't have time for that. I don't kn
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 11/28/2017 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> One thing we'd definitely better do is enable some buildfarm coverage.
>> AFAIK, the only buildfarm animal that's building the docs is guaibasaurus,
>> and it only seems to be doing that on HEAD. Since this has considerably
>> in
On 11/28/2017 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> One thing we'd definitely better do is enable some buildfarm coverage.
> AFAIK, the only buildfarm animal that's building the docs is guaibasaurus,
> and it only seems to be doing that on HEAD. Since this has considerably
> increased the risks of back-
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 11/23/17 15:39, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think we should have a discussion about whether it'd be smart
>> to convert the back branches' documentation to XML as well.
> My short answer to that is, I don't have time for that. I don't know if
> anyone else wants to investi
On 11/23/17 15:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think we should have a discussion about whether it'd be smart
> to convert the back branches' documentation to XML as well.
My short answer to that is, I don't have time for that. I don't know if
anyone else wants to investigate it. But it took us years to
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> The documentation sources are now DocBook XML, not SGML. (The files are
>> still named *.sgml. That's something to think about separately.)
>
> I think we should have a discussion about whether it'd be smart
> to con
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> The documentation sources are now DocBook XML, not SGML. (The files are
>> still named *.sgml. That's something to think about separately.)
>
> Congratulations to you and Alexa
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> The documentation sources are now DocBook XML, not SGML. (The files are
> still named *.sgml. That's something to think about separately.)
I think we should have a discussion about whether it'd be smart
to convert the back branches' documentation to XML as well.
The
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> The documentation sources are now DocBook XML, not SGML. (The files are
> still named *.sgml. That's something to think about separately.)
Congratulations to you and Alexander ! That is what I waited for a long time.
Now we could think
39 matches
Mail list logo
