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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company