From: | Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Suggested changes to Book pages |
Date: | 2010-11-11 19:13:32 |
Message-ID: | 4CDC405C.9010006@lelarge.info |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
Le 11/11/2010 19:23, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
> Le 11/11/2010 19:05, Robert Haas a écrit :
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>> On ons, 2010-11-10 at 14:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> I think marking version numbers for each book is a good idea, though I
>>>> would be inclined to get more specific than 7/8/9.
>>>
>>> How do you know which exact version a particular book covers? Isn't
>>> mentioned the date of publication a more neutral and robust approach?
>>
>> I can't imagine that figuring out the versions the book covers is all
>> that hard, and it seems a lot more useful than just the publication
>> date, although of course we could have both.
>>
>
> Sure, it seems much more useful. If we don't know for some books, we can
> still put "?" for them. I guess it will be for old books, and who wants
> to buy a book on PostgreSQL written in 2005? except nerds like me :)
>
> And about Simon's initial mail on this thread, definitive +1 from me for
> his four suggested changes.
>
"Enough whining, just do it!". See patch attached :)
Hope it fixes all issues (I actually did other minor fixes).
--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
books.patch | text/x-diff | 13.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-11 20:33:07 | Re: Suggested changes to Book pages |
Previous Message | Guillaume Lelarge | 2010-11-11 18:23:57 | Re: Suggested changes to Book pages |