From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: v7.1 beta 1 ...packaged, finally ... |
Date: | 2000-12-08 05:55:21 |
Message-ID: | 29512.976254921@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> [ various good reasons ]
> 3) We put the docs into cvs, but the jade/docbook output did not have
> predictable file names. So each release would require wiping the output
> docs and somehow guessing which files were obsolete and which were new.
That's something that's annoyed me for a good while in a different
context, namely that URLs for particular pages of the docs on
postgresql.org aren't stable. (Well, maybe they are? but foo58342.htm
doesn't give one a warm feeling about it. chap3sec7.htm would look
a lot better.)
Is there any prospect of making the output filenames more predictable?
Who should I annoy about it?
> I think that *requiring* that the html docs be built in place to effect
> a release is an extra toolset burden that we should not accept.
Agreed on that one...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-08 06:27:29 | Re: Re: COPY BINARY file format proposal |
Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2000-12-08 05:46:59 | Re: Re: COPY BINARY file format proposal |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-12-08 06:29:55 | Re: v7.1 beta 1 ...packaged, finally ... |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-12-08 04:36:26 | Re: v7.1 beta 1 ...packaged, finally ... |