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

Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib

From: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>
To: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib
Date: 2007-01-31 04:05:00
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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
>> enough.
> 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 (neƩ  
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.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2007-01-31 04:16:28
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] pg_standby
Previous:From: David FetterDate: 2007-01-31 03:42:20
Subject: Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib

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