| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Rafael Martinez <r(dot)m(dot)guerrero(at)usit(dot)uio(dot)no>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Documentation and explanatory diagrams |
| Date: | 2010-07-03 02:13:21 |
| Message-ID: | 1257.1278123201@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> People often built them to verify the SGML markup and to view the
>> content/markup before submitting a doc patch.
> Actually, they often DON'T, which is a problem, and adding more
> requirements is only going to make it worse.
> There is not much reason for an end-user to build the docs - most
> end-users will install from RPMs or one-click installers or whatever.
> But everyone who is a developer needs to be able to build them,
I think that adding dia to the set of requirements isn't that big a
deal, assuming that it's a widely available package. It's just one
program and should be a lot easier to install and configure than our
other doc toolchain requirements.
What I'm more worried about at the moment is whether it's a reasonable
choice of tool. If the "source" for a diagram is larger than the PNG
image representation, there is something seriously wrong with the
language design.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-07-03 02:15:58 | Re: Documentation and explanatory diagrams |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-07-03 02:09:25 | Re: Documentation and explanatory diagrams |