From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "p(dot)b uday" <uday(dot)pb26(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GSoC applicant proposal, Uday PB |
Date: | 2020-03-19 19:20:59 |
Message-ID: | a185b250-4e13-f854-c55a-8c1a84f51b11@anastigmatix.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/19/20 2:03 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Does your project imply any coding? AFAIR, GSoC doesn't allow pure
> documentation projects.
That's a good question. The idea as I proposed it is more of an
infrastructure project, adjusting the toolchain that currently
autogenerates the docs (along with some stylesheets/templates) so
that a more usable web reference is generated from the existing
documentation—and to make it capable of generating per-version
subtrees, as the PostgreSQL manual does, rather than having the
most recent release be the only online reference available.
I was not envisioning it as a technical-writing project to improve
the content of the documentation. That surely wouldn't hurt, but
isn't what I had in mind here.
I am open to withdrawing it and reposting as a Google Season of Docs
project if that's what the community prefers, only in that case
I wonder if it would end up attracting contributors who would be
expecting to do some writing and copy-editing, and end up intimidated
by the coding/infrastructure work required.
So I'm not certain how it should be categorized, or whether GSoC
rules should preclude it. Judgment call?
Regards,
-Chap
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-03-19 19:23:04 | Re: [PATCH] pg_upgrade: report the reason for failing to open the cluster version file |
Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2020-03-19 19:12:47 | Re: Collation versioning |