Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: A FAQ that needs updating?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: A FAQ that needs updating?
Date: 2008-01-29 17:59:34
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > I would like to know myself.  I assume Josh Berkus but am just
> > guessing. Can we just remove the last three items on that page?
> O.k. just so I am 100% clear :) We are talking about the /press/faq
> right? If so... IMO the following needs to happen:
> The press FAQ should be a section (internal ref of course) within the
> general FAQ as I am guessing there is some significant overlap.
> I believe that press should be replaced with the word Advocacy or maybe
> Advocacy & Press.
> All redundant information should be removed between the general and
> press advocacy sections.
> Add a section on the FAQ page for the Advocacy & Press section that
> links to the section within the general FAQ.
> Appropriate rewrites put in place to push all requests for the old FAQ
> to the new (and proper) one.

I wasn't going to go that far at this point.  I was just suggesting
removing the bottom three items that are related to the 8.3 release.

  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to


pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2008-01-29 18:02:40
Subject: Re: A FAQ that needs updating?
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2008-01-29 17:36:12
Subject: Re: A FAQ that needs updating?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group