On Jan 31, 2007, at 12:42 , David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 03:49:14PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> 6. they all need proper docs. READMEs and the like are nowhere
>> near good
> Agreed. I'm thinking a new major section in the SGML docs is in order
> with a subsection for each contrib/ piece underneath.
I agree re: new section. Are you thinking that all contrib docs would
be built automatically, even if the individual extensions (neé
contrib modules?) aren't installed? I think that would definitely
raise awareness of the extensions that are available.
I'd also like to see being able to add docs for non-core extensions
(e.g., ip4r) to the main documentation. Not sure what that would
involve: rebuilding the tocs and index, besides the new pages
themselves? Or perhaps just a rebuild of the complete docs? I haven't
had docs building on a local system for a couple of years, so I'm not
it a position currently to play around with this, but it's something
I'd love to learn how to do.
grzm seespotcode net
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2007-01-31 04:16:28|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] pg_standby|
|Previous:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2007-01-31 03:42:20|
|Subject: Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib|