Re: Installation instructions vs binaries

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Magnus Hagander
Тема Re: Installation instructions vs binaries
Дата
Msg-id CABUevEzRLmuo7horOshbCSO6=1ogT_=irfR7Ki8pOVSrev=hjg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Installation instructions vs binaries  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Installation instructions vs binaries
Список pgsql-docs
On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:51 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> I think we're talking about a different repetitiveness. If I apply Davids
> suggestion to that patch, then instead of:

> +  <para>
> +   If you are using a pre-packaged version
> +   of <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>, it may well have a specific
> +   convention for where to place the data directory, and it may also
> +   provide a script for creating the data directory.  In that case you

> It would say something like
> Pre-packaged versions of PostgreSQL may have a specific convention....
> (rest unchanged).

[ shrug... ]  Well, I wrote that text, so naturally I like it the way
it is ;-).  Perhaps a neutral observer would like the shorter version
better, not sure.  But I think pluralizing "versions" is going to make
it harder to construct the rest of the sentence non-ambiguously.
You really only want to be talking about one data directory location
and one wrapper script.

Yeah, I guess it can work either way. I don't feel too strongly about that one, so I'll leave it to David to argue for that standpoint if he thinks it applies here as well.

That leaves just the part of adding the actual new chapter of my patch. PFA. Thoughts on that? 

--
Вложения

В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Installation instructions vs binaries
Следующее
От: PG Doc comments form
Дата:
Сообщение: typo in literature reference