Обсуждение: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: remove tags.

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> remove tags.
> >
> >> Sorry, vague commit message (I forgot squash).
> >
> >> Can I will use git ammend to improve this message?
>
> Absolutely not.
>
> > How about git revert, instead? ?It's not apparent to me that these
> > changes were improvements.
>
> I'll buy that one.

[  CC to docs, committers removed. ]

Well, if we want to revert, then we have to add <literal> to all the
numbers used in our docs --- there was no logic in what we previously
had.  Do we want that?

Here is an example line I did not change:

   an otherwise idle connection.  A value of 0 uses the system default.

Do we want that 0 to appear in a fixed-width font via <literal>?
It is easy to do but we should decide.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >>> remove tags.
>> >
>> >> Sorry, vague commit message (I forgot squash).
>> >
>> >> Can I will use git ammend to improve this message?
>>
>> Absolutely not.
>>
>> > How about git revert, instead? ?It's not apparent to me that these
>> > changes were improvements.
>>
>> I'll buy that one.
>
> [  CC to docs, committers removed. ]
>
> Well, if we want to revert, then we have to add <literal> to all the
> numbers used in our docs --- there was no logic in what we previously
> had.  Do we want that?
>
> Here is an example line I did not change:
>
>   an otherwise idle connection.  A value of 0 uses the system default.
>
> Do we want that 0 to appear in a fixed-width font via <literal>?
> It is easy to do but we should decide.

[ removing -hackers from CC also, no need to cross-post ]

Hmm.  I'm starting to lean toward leaving this as you have it.

Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?

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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?

We don't have a standard for this, and an undocumented patch applied
without any discussion doesn't create one.  It's hopeless to imagine
that you'll ever achieve any uniformity that way.  It won't last long
if you do, since you're outnumbered by committers who won't be following
whatever you think the convention is.

I'm not even sure why you're trying --- I don't think it even makes
sense to try to have a standard about this.  I can easily imagine that
integer constants might read better with <literal> in some contexts
and better without in others.

            regards, tom lane

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> >> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> >>> remove tags.
> >> >
> >> >> Sorry, vague commit message (I forgot squash).
> >> >
> >> >> Can I will use git ammend to improve this message?
> >>
> >> Absolutely not.
> >>
> >> > How about git revert, instead? ?It's not apparent to me that these
> >> > changes were improvements.
> >>
> >> I'll buy that one.
> >
> > [ ?CC to docs, committers removed. ]
> >
> > Well, if we want to revert, then we have to add <literal> to all the
> > numbers used in our docs --- there was no logic in what we previously
> > had. ?Do we want that?
> >
> > Here is an example line I did not change:
> >
> > ? an otherwise idle connection. ?A value of 0 uses the system default.
> >
> > Do we want that 0 to appear in a fixed-width font via <literal>?
> > It is easy to do but we should decide.
>
> [ removing -hackers from CC also, no need to cross-post ]
>
> Hmm.  I'm starting to lean toward leaving this as you have it.
>
> Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?

It was mostly like the line I have above, meaning it was not in
fixed-width font, 95% I would say.  I modified 19 to be like the rest.
I left <literal> where the context made sense.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?
>
> We don't have a standard for this, and an undocumented patch applied
> without any discussion doesn't create one.  It's hopeless to imagine
> that you'll ever achieve any uniformity that way.  It won't last long
> if you do, since you're outnumbered by committers who won't be following
> whatever you think the convention is.
>
> I'm not even sure why you're trying --- I don't think it even makes
> sense to try to have a standard about this.  I can easily imagine that
> integer constants might read better with <literal> in some contexts
> and better without in others.

*reads patch more carefully*

Here are my verdicts:

advanced.sgml: good
array.sgml: good
backup.sgml: unsure
catalogs.sgml: bad
client-auth.sgml: bad
config.sgml: bad
func.sgml: bad
high-availability.sgml: bad
libpq.sgml: bad
runtime.sgml: bad
spi.sgml: unsure
tsearch2.sgml: good

So I guess I'm back agreeing with you.  Basically, it seems like we
ought to use <literal> if it's being used as a value that the user
might want to supply (e.g. "if you set this parameter to 0, then no
statements will be logged).  It shouldn't use <literal> if it's just
being used as a number (e.g. "this query will return all airplanes
with a height of less than 30,000 feet").  The cases I'm unsure about
are the ones where we're talking about a return value (e.g. in the
event of an error, this function will return -1).

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

Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?
>
> We don't have a standard for this, and an undocumented patch applied
> without any discussion doesn't create one.  It's hopeless to imagine
> that you'll ever achieve any uniformity that way.  It won't last long
> if you do, since you're outnumbered by committers who won't be following
> whatever you think the convention is.

Well, the problem is that we then have paragraphs where a number is
fixed width, and in the next paragraph it isn't;  this is particuarly
true in the config.sgml file where we show defaults.  Seems worth trying
to make that consistent.  I am happy to do whatever we agree on --- I
don't have an opinion.

> I'm not even sure why you're trying --- I don't think it even makes
> sense to try to have a standard about this.  I can easily imagine that
> integer constants might read better with <literal> in some contexts
> and better without in others.

Yes, I reviewed all the places and left <literal> where it made sense.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?
> >
> > We don't have a standard for this, and an undocumented patch applied
> > without any discussion doesn't create one. ?It's hopeless to imagine
> > that you'll ever achieve any uniformity that way. ?It won't last long
> > if you do, since you're outnumbered by committers who won't be following
> > whatever you think the convention is.
> >
> > I'm not even sure why you're trying --- I don't think it even makes
> > sense to try to have a standard about this. ?I can easily imagine that
> > integer constants might read better with <literal> in some contexts
> > and better without in others.
>
> *reads patch more carefully*
>
> Here are my verdicts:
>
> advanced.sgml: good
> array.sgml: good
> backup.sgml: unsure
> catalogs.sgml: bad
> client-auth.sgml: bad
> config.sgml: bad
> func.sgml: bad
> high-availability.sgml: bad
> libpq.sgml: bad
> runtime.sgml: bad
> spi.sgml: unsure
> tsearch2.sgml: good
>
> So I guess I'm back agreeing with you.  Basically, it seems like we
> ought to use <literal> if it's being used as a value that the user
> might want to supply (e.g. "if you set this parameter to 0, then no
> statements will be logged).  It shouldn't use <literal> if it's just
> being used as a number (e.g. "this query will return all airplanes
> with a height of less than 30,000 feet").  The cases I'm unsure about
> are the ones where we're talking about a return value (e.g. in the
> event of an error, this function will return -1).

OK, let's decide what we want and I will make it happen.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?
> >
> > We don't have a standard for this, and an undocumented patch applied
> > without any discussion doesn't create one. ?It's hopeless to imagine
> > that you'll ever achieve any uniformity that way. ?It won't last long
> > if you do, since you're outnumbered by committers who won't be following
> > whatever you think the convention is.
> >
> > I'm not even sure why you're trying --- I don't think it even makes
> > sense to try to have a standard about this. ?I can easily imagine that
> > integer constants might read better with <literal> in some contexts
> > and better without in others.
>
> *reads patch more carefully*
>
> Here are my verdicts:
>
> advanced.sgml: good
> array.sgml: good
> backup.sgml: unsure
> catalogs.sgml: bad
> client-auth.sgml: bad
> config.sgml: bad
> func.sgml: bad
> high-availability.sgml: bad
> libpq.sgml: bad
> runtime.sgml: bad
> spi.sgml: unsure
> tsearch2.sgml: good
>
> So I guess I'm back agreeing with you.  Basically, it seems like we
> ought to use <literal> if it's being used as a value that the user
> might want to supply (e.g. "if you set this parameter to 0, then no
> statements will be logged).  It shouldn't use <literal> if it's just
> being used as a number (e.g. "this query will return all airplanes
> with a height of less than 30,000 feet").  The cases I'm unsure about
> are the ones where we're talking about a return value (e.g. in the
> event of an error, this function will return -1).

Robert, based on your logic, the 'return -1' should not be literal
because no one would type that in.  Unless I hear otherwise I will work
on a patch to match the rules you outlined above.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

I already told you that your changes will only appear in 9.1 --- we don't
usually backpatch wording changes.  You can see the development docs here:

        http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/index.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leslie S Satenstein wrote:
>
> it appears that PDF files need no reformatting, and that it is ok to
> allow long command lines to be truncated by the right margins, or even
> better, that pronouns that refer back to a noun, are not specific
> enough.? One has to stop and think, --- to which noun is "this" (a
> pronoun) referring to.
>
> I am not challenging the technical content, which I have found to be
> precise, but only that someone should proof read text to ensure good
> grammar.
>
> No real improvement between pdf version 9.02 and 9.03, after I reported
> some issues with the former.
>
> ------------------
>
> Regards ?Leslie
>  Mr. Leslie Satenstein 40 years in IT and going strong.  Yesterday was
> a good day, today is a better day, and tomorrow will be even better.
> ?  mailto:lsatenstein@yahoo.com alternative: leslie.satenstein@itbms.biz
> www.itbms.biz / www.eclipseguard.com
>
>
> --- On Mon, 2/7/11, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> Subject: Re: [DOCS] [COMMITTERS]
> pgsql: remove tags.  To: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com> Cc: "Tom
> Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "PostgreSQL-documentation"
> <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org> Date: Monday, February 7, 2011, 10:54 AM
>
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > > Robert Haas wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > >> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > >> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >> >>> remove tags.
> > >> >
> > >> >> Sorry, vague commit message (I forgot squash).
> > >> >
> > >> >> Can I will use git ammend to improve this message?
> > >>
> > >> Absolutely not.
> > >>
> > >> > How about git revert, instead? ?It's not apparent to me that these
> > >> > changes were improvements.
> > >>
> > >> I'll buy that one.
> > >
> > > [ ?CC to docs, committers removed. ]
> > >
> > > Well, if we want to revert, then we have to add <literal> to all the
> > > numbers used in our docs --- there was no logic in what we previously
> > > had. ?Do we want that?
> > >
> > > Here is an example line I did not change:
> > >
> > > ? an otherwise idle connection. ?A value of 0 uses the system default.
> > >
> > > Do we want that 0 to appear in a fixed-width font via <literal>?
> > > It is easy to do but we should decide.
> >
> > [ removing -hackers from CC also, no need to cross-post ]
> >
> > Hmm.? I'm starting to lean toward leaving this as you have it.
> >
> > Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?
>
> It was mostly like the line I have above, meaning it was not in
> fixed-width font, 95% I would say.? I modified 19 to be like the rest.
> I left <literal> where the context made sense.
>
> -- ? Bruce Momjian? <bruce@momjian.us>? ? ? ? http://momjian.us ?
> EnterpriseDB? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???http://enterprisedb.com
>
> ? + It's impossible for everything to be true. +
>
> -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make
> changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Did we want to do any more on the issue of using <literal> for numbers
in our docs?  The February thread is here:

    http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2011-02/msg00028.php

While the applied patch removed the 'literal' tag from some numbers, we
were not consistenly using 'literal' for constants in our docs.

I can make the change if we decide what we consistently want, or maybe it
is fine as-is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?
> >
> > We don't have a standard for this, and an undocumented patch applied
> > without any discussion doesn't create one. ?It's hopeless to imagine
> > that you'll ever achieve any uniformity that way. ?It won't last long
> > if you do, since you're outnumbered by committers who won't be following
> > whatever you think the convention is.
> >
> > I'm not even sure why you're trying --- I don't think it even makes
> > sense to try to have a standard about this. ?I can easily imagine that
> > integer constants might read better with <literal> in some contexts
> > and better without in others.
>
> *reads patch more carefully*
>
> Here are my verdicts:
>
> advanced.sgml: good
> array.sgml: good
> backup.sgml: unsure
> catalogs.sgml: bad
> client-auth.sgml: bad
> config.sgml: bad
> func.sgml: bad
> high-availability.sgml: bad
> libpq.sgml: bad
> runtime.sgml: bad
> spi.sgml: unsure
> tsearch2.sgml: good
>
> So I guess I'm back agreeing with you.  Basically, it seems like we
> ought to use <literal> if it's being used as a value that the user
> might want to supply (e.g. "if you set this parameter to 0, then no
> statements will be logged).  It shouldn't use <literal> if it's just
> being used as a number (e.g. "this query will return all airplanes
> with a height of less than 30,000 feet").  The cases I'm unsure about
> are the ones where we're talking about a return value (e.g. in the
> event of an error, this function will return -1).
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > So I guess I'm back agreeing with you.  Basically, it seems like we
> > ought to use <literal> if it's being used as a value that the user
> > might want to supply (e.g. "if you set this parameter to 0, then no
> > statements will be logged).  It shouldn't use <literal> if it's just
> > being used as a number (e.g. "this query will return all airplanes
> > with a height of less than 30,000 feet").  The cases I'm unsure about
> > are the ones where we're talking about a return value (e.g. in the
> > event of an error, this function will return -1).
>
> Robert, based on your logic, the 'return -1' should not be literal
> because no one would type that in.  Unless I hear otherwise I will work
> on a patch to match the rules you outlined above.

FYI, here is what I thought was Robert's conclusion on this.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> Did we want to do any more on the issue of using <literal> for numbers
> in our docs?  The February thread is here:
>
>        http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-docs/2011-02/msg00028.php
>
> While the applied patch removed the 'literal' tag from some numbers, we
> were not consistenly using 'literal' for constants in our docs.
>
> I can make the change if we decide what we consistently want, or maybe it
> is fine as-is.

I think it's fine as-is.

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