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.
The shorter version I suggest does require some implicit understanding on the part of the reader - that while I speak of the collective each individual member can vary. The current version just speaks relative to some already chosen member. Given the target audience my only concern with the more wordy version would be impaired comprehension but that doesn't seem likely, so I would maintain status quo.
That leaves just the part of adding the actual new chapter of my patch. PFA. Thoughts on that?
I think that it is a good idea - and the patch reads well. I kinda want to be blunt, though, and point out that if the user is using a pre-packaged version that the packager, and not the core team, accepts responsibility for problem reports related to installation, on their support channel. Please don't use pg-bugs. We provide links on our website as a convenience, not as endorsement.