Andrew Dunstan a écrit :
Albert Cervera i Areny wrote:
I'm very strongly in favor of having this documentation. However, I
think
it might make sense to put Contrib Modules as a section under either
Reference or Appendices. Also, I don't think it's necessary to make
each command option
Am Mittwoch, 29. August 2007 20:18 schrieb Neil Conway:
I wonder if it would be possible to keep the master version of the
contrib docs as SGML, and generate plaintext READMEs from it during the
documentation build.
Using asciidoc you could do it the other way around.
--
Peter Eisentraut
Am Mittwoch, 29. August 2007 20:27 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
Also, let's recall what has previously been discussed for contrib,
namely that we break it out into standard modules
But that would also mean that the documentation system is somewhat
modularized. That is, if I deinstall some module,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 29. August 2007 20:27 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
Also, let's recall what has previously been discussed for contrib,
namely that we break it out into standard modules
But that would also mean that the documentation system is somewhat
modularized.
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you want to design a pluggable documentation system then go for it,
but it's not required by what I understand is the consensus plan for
contrib.
I thought a large part of the desire was to improve the visibility of
the contrib docs, ie, put the
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2007 15:13 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
What? No it doesn't. You have missed the key word in the sentence above:
standard. The idea is that the docs will describe the *standard*
modules, i.e. those that ship with the PostgreSQL core distribution
(because they are currently
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2007 15:26 schrieb Tom Lane:
I thought a large part of the desire was to improve the visibility of
the contrib docs, ie, put the docs under the noses of people who have
*not* installed or even heard of the modules. So it's not in the docs
unless you installed it
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2007 15:26 schrieb Tom Lane:
I thought a large part of the desire was to improve the visibility of
the contrib docs, ie, put the docs under the noses of people who have
*not* installed or even heard of the modules. So it's not in the docs
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we go ahead with this, I'll commit to doing a contrib README
cleanup so the doc system works better.
Why wouldn't we just remove the README files altogether? I can't
see maintaining duplicate sets of documentation.
regards, tom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we go ahead with this, I'll commit to doing a contrib README
cleanup so the doc system works better.
Why wouldn't we just remove the README files altogether? I can't
see maintaining
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 13:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Why wouldn't we just remove the README files altogether? I can't
see maintaining duplicate sets of documentation.
I agree that duplication is bad, but I think README files in the
individual contrib directories is useful and worth keeping: if
Tom Lane wrote:
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If we go ahead with this, I'll commit to doing a contrib README
cleanup so the doc system works better.
Why wouldn't we just remove the README files altogether? I can't
see maintaining duplicate sets of documentation.
On 29/08/2007, Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if it would be possible to keep the master version of the
contrib docs as SGML, and generate plaintext READMEs from it during the
documentation build.
Hello Neil, I think I'm doing something similar but not with README
files.
On 8/29/07, Mario Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29/08/2007, Neil Conway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if it would be possible to keep the master version of the
contrib docs as SGML, and generate plaintext READMEs from it during the
documentation build.
Hello Neil, I think
On Aug 29, 2007, at 13:27 , Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Also, let's recall what has previously been discussed for contrib,
namely that we break it out into standard modules (think Perl
standard modules) and other tools, and that we abandon the wholly
misleading contrib name altogether. I really
Scott Marlowe escribió:
Could the contrib README files couldn't be generated from the same
source as the docs (i.e. sgml) and then put into the appropriate
contrib/module/ directory.
Sure they can. We already do that for INSTALL for example.
--
Alvaro Herrera
On 8/29/07, Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Marlowe escribió:
Could the contrib README files couldn't be generated from the same
source as the docs (i.e. sgml) and then put into the appropriate
contrib/module/ directory.
Sure they can. We already do that for INSTALL for
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Further, you know we don't finish the docs until beta. Ever.
Right, working on docs is a standard beta-period activity. I think
Greg is suggesting that right now is not the time to think about
improving contrib docs --- right now is the time to keep our
18 matches
Mail list logo
