Re: Documentation in book length
| От | Peter Eisentraut |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Documentation in book length |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.44.0301031948540.8249-100000@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Documentation in book length (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-docs |
Tom Lane writes: > BTW, the Red Hat RHDB group has spent a fair amount of time rethinking > the overall organization of the docs and trying to organize 'em in a > more logical order. They'd like to contribute that work back so they > don't have to maintain a variant version of the docs. Is this a good > time to think about looking over what they've done? Yes, we shall use them as an example of how not to do it. I spend quite some time today to analyze their documentation arrangement, but it doesn't make sense to me. There are a couple of obvious rearrangements and a couple of things we could think about if they were briefly explained, but overall it looks pretty confused, to say it nicely. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
В списке pgsql-docs по дате отправления: