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

Re: Documentation in book length

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Documentation in book length
Date: 2003-01-04 10:36:22
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0301031948540.8249-100000@localhost.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-docs
Tom Lane writes:

> BTW, the Red Hat RHDB group has spent a fair amount of time rethinking
> the overall organization of the docs and trying to organize 'em in a
> more logical order.  They'd like to contribute that work back so they
> don't have to maintain a variant version of the docs.  Is this a good
> time to think about looking over what they've done?

Yes, we shall use them as an example of how not to do it.

I spend quite some time today to analyze their documentation arrangement,
but it doesn't make sense to me.  There are a couple of obvious
rearrangements and a couple of things we could think about if they were
briefly explained, but overall it looks pretty confused, to say it nicely.

Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-04 16:05:06
Subject: Re: Documentation in book length
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2003-01-04 10:32:28
Subject: Re: status of 7.3 docs?

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