On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yes --- eliminating our silly "it's somewhere in that part"
> cross-references is quite sufficient reason in my mind to abandon the
> option of building the docs in sections. If we have to build the whole
> book every time, so be it.
Ya, shouldn't be a problem from the server side for doing such ... we're
in the process of adding a new server online that is "bigger and better"
then what we have online right now, and I'm going to be looking at moving
more stuff off of the current server used for postgresql.org ...
> BTW, the Red Hat RHDB group has spent a fair amount of time rethinking
> the overall organization of the docs and trying to organize 'em in a
> more logical order. They'd like to contribute that work back so they
> don't have to maintain a variant version of the docs. Is this a good
> time to think about looking over what they've done?
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-01-03 01:04:25|
|Subject: Re: Documentation in book length |
|Previous:||From: Marc G. Fournier||Date: 2003-01-03 01:00:04|
|Subject: Re: Documentation in book length|