Re: PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?

Tom's suggestion is much better than mine. I concur fully.

My issue, essentially, is that I want to get on with the business of actually testing these alphas...

The 'Jade effect' has become an obstacle; time wasted.

And, though I do want the documentation - ultimately - I'd like the option of make-ing a non Jade-dependent version of them.
Don't give the proverbial 'two hoots' about Jade.

Regards All, Lou

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "Lou Picciano" <loupicciano(at)comcast(dot)net>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Joe Conway" <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Sent: Friday, March 5, 2010 8:09:54 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [BUGS] PostgreSQL-9.0alpha: jade required?

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On tor, 2010-03-04 at 17:53 +0000, Lou Picciano wrote:
>> ./configure --no-docs or ./configure --with-htmldocs-only

> But that would be a negative regression for end users, who we want to
> have the docs available by default, so they can read them.

"End users" in that sense would almost certainly be working from a
distribution tarball, if not a prepackaged distro. I don't think
this discussion is about them; it's about what is most convenient
for developers. As a developer, I don't find the current arrangement
convenient in the least.

What I'd be for is breaking the docs out as a separate top-level target,
ie "make docs", "make install-docs". I don't much care for Lou's
suggestion of tying it to a configure option because that imposes the
significant additional cost of re-configuring when I change my mind.
I do need to be *able* to build the docs, I just don't want it happening
by surprise.

regards, tom lane