Re: [HACKERS] Questionable tag usage

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Questionable tag usage
Date: 2017-03-22 03:02:37
Message-ID: 32520.1490151757@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 1/4/17 11:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Anyway, bottom line is I'm not terribly excited about fixing just this
>>> one place. I think we need to decide whether we like the new more-verbose
>>> output for links. If we don't, we need to fix the markup rules to not do
>>> that. If we do, there are a lot of places that need adjustment to be less
>>> duplicative, and we should try to be somewhat systematic about fixing
>>> them.

> This question is still open. Do we want to keep the new linking style
> Section 1.2.3, "Title", or revert back to the old style just Section
> 1.2.3? It's a simple toggle setting.

I'd vote for reverting for now. If someone wants to run through the
docs and make considered decisions about where the more verbose style
is a win and where it isn't, then we could make the style change.
But that does not seem like a high-priority task --- and at the moment,
what we've got is a huge pile of docs that were written with the
less verbose style of markup in mind. So my bet is that there's a lot
of places where more-verbose is not a win.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message vodevsh 2017-03-22 09:29:53 user mapping options list
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2017-03-22 01:50:42 Re: Questionable tag usage

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2017-03-22 03:11:48 Re: segfault in hot standby for hash indexes
Previous Message Seki, Eiji 2017-03-22 02:53:51 Re: Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitrary vacuum flags