Le 11/11/2010 21:33, Robert Haas a écrit :
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
>> Le 11/11/2010 19:23, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
>>> Le 11/11/2010 19:05, Robert Haas a écrit :
>>>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>>>>> On ons, 2010-11-10 at 14:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>>> I think marking version numbers for each book is a good idea, though I
>>>>>> would be inclined to get more specific than 7/8/9.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know which exact version a particular book covers? Isn't
>>>>> mentioned the date of publication a more neutral and robust approach?
>>>>
>>>> I can't imagine that figuring out the versions the book covers is all
>>>> that hard, and it seems a lot more useful than just the publication
>>>> date, although of course we could have both.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, it seems much more useful. If we don't know for some books, we can
>>> still put "?" for them. I guess it will be for old books, and who wants
>>> to buy a book on PostgreSQL written in 2005? except nerds like me :)
>>>
>>> And about Simon's initial mail on this thread, definitive +1 from me for
>>> his four suggested changes.
>>>
>>
>> "Enough whining, just do it!". See patch attached :)
>>
>> Hope it fixes all issues (I actually did other minor fixes).
>
> I was imagining the list of versions as a range associated with each
> book, rather than assigning each book to a single version.
>
I don't see how you can assign a range of versions. Can you tell me what
you would have done for the two new books?
--
Guillaumehttp://www.postgresql.frhttp://dalibo.com