Обсуждение: Move src/tools/backend/ to wiki
So I just noticed that we have a description of the Pg innards in the sourcecode, complete with a flowchart and all, at src/tools/backend. I had already seen this graph years ago; what shocked me the most was finding out that there's a pointer to it in the Developer's FAQ, in a question that's absolutely unrelated to it. So I went ahead and moved its mention to a separate question, where it has a lot more visibility. (I also added an URL to anoncvs, where people can see it more readily.) What I'm wondering right now is what's the value of having this stuff in the source code at all. Why don't we move it to the Wiki and remove it from the repo? Would anybody object to that idea? Having it on CVS means that nobody is able to improve the text, which is kind of sad because it's been neglected for the last 3 years. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> What I'm wondering right now is what's the value of having this stuff
> in the source code at all.
So it will be in sync with the version of the source it's with?
If we move it to the wiki it'll be impractical to maintain the info
for anything except HEAD.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > > What I'm wondering right now is what's the value of having this stuff > > in the source code at all. > > So it will be in sync with the version of the source it's with? > If we move it to the wiki it'll be impractical to maintain the info > for anything except HEAD. Hmm, that's true, but I wonder how important that is, versus the consideration that more eyes looking at it might make it more useful. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > So I just noticed that we have a description of the Pg innards in the > sourcecode, complete with a flowchart and all, at src/tools/backend. > I had already seen this graph years ago; what shocked me the most was > finding out that there's a pointer to it in the Developer's FAQ, in a > question that's absolutely unrelated to it. BTW this is also exposed in the main website: http://www.postgresql.org/developer/ext.backend.html -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > So I just noticed that we have a description of the Pg innards in the > sourcecode, complete with a flowchart and all, at src/tools/backend. > I had already seen this graph years ago; what shocked me the most was > finding out that there's a pointer to it in the Developer's FAQ, in a > question that's absolutely unrelated to it. > > So I went ahead and moved its mention to a separate question, where it > has a lot more visibility. (I also added an URL to anoncvs, where > people can see it more readily.) > > What I'm wondering right now is what's the value of having this stuff > in the source code at all. Why don't we move it to the Wiki and remove > it from the repo? Would anybody object to that idea? Having it on CVS > means that nobody is able to improve the text, which is kind of sad > because it's been neglected for the last 3 years. I have no problem having it moved to the wiki, though it does have HTML imagemap elements. I don't think much changes at the flow chart level from release to release so it would fine if it was just CVS HEAD. I also don't think many people do back-branch development. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008, Bruce Momjian wrote: > I don't think much changes at the flow chart level from release to > release so it would fine if it was just CVS HEAD. I also don't think > many people do back-branch development. It's easy with Mediawiki to both 1) see the old version for those situations and 2) copy the page to somewhere else to "tag" the one that goes along with a particular release. If there is some version specific stuff there it's straightforward to do something along one of those two lines at the point it's needed. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > So I went ahead and moved its mention to a separate question, where it > has a lot more visibility. (I also added an URL to anoncvs, where > people can see it more readily.) Perhaps the low visibility also has to do with the fact that documentation is hidden under "tools". > What I'm wondering right now is what's the value of having this stuff > in the source code at all. Why don't we move it to the Wiki and remove > it from the repo? Would anybody object to that idea? Having it on CVS > means that nobody is able to improve the text, which is kind of sad > because it's been neglected for the last 3 years. I think it is documentation and should therefore be kept in CVS. Once we start applying the argument that things should be moved to the wiki based on getting more people to work on it, we might as well move the source code to the wiki altogether. ;-)
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> So I went ahead and moved its mention to a separate question, where it >> has a lot more visibility. (I also added an URL to anoncvs, where >> people can see it more readily.) > > Perhaps the low visibility also has to do with the fact that > documentation is hidden under "tools". Well, with the way it was before it was even more hidden. Now at least it has its own question, and has working links and all. However I wonder how much value there really is in the developer's FAQ, considering that some answers seem rather poor. For example the answer on ereport() was wrong, and nobody ever pointed it out. The answer on palloc/pfree is very incomplete too. My question is, is this resource actually useful for somebody? > Once we start applying the argument that things should be moved to > the wiki based on getting more people to work on it, we might as well > move the source code to the wiki altogether. ;-) Hey, now that's a clever idea! -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > However I wonder how much value there really is in the developer's FAQ, > considering that some answers seem rather poor. For example the > answer on ereport() was wrong, and nobody ever pointed it out. The > answer on palloc/pfree is very incomplete too. I think the developer's FAQ has essentially been unmaintained for many years. I think we should gradually migrate the content to other wiki pages and eventually drop the FAQ.
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 10:29:54AM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> However I wonder how much value there really is in the developer's >> FAQ, considering that some answers seem rather poor. For example >> the answer on ereport() was wrong, and nobody ever pointed it out. >> The answer on palloc/pfree is very incomplete too. > > I think the developer's FAQ has essentially been unmaintained for > many years. I think we should gradually migrate the content to > other wiki pages and eventually drop the FAQ. +1 :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> However I wonder how much value there really is in the developer's FAQ, >> considering that some answers seem rather poor. For example the >> answer on ereport() was wrong, and nobody ever pointed it out. The >> answer on palloc/pfree is very incomplete too. > > I think the developer's FAQ has essentially been unmaintained for many > years. I think we should gradually migrate the content to other wiki > pages and eventually drop the FAQ. In a way, this has already started; some answers are now just pointers to other wiki pages or to the docs. I think getting rid of the FAQ completely is not necessarily a good idea; it seems useful as a collection of interesting questions. Moving the contents to new pages is probably OK. Also, as the answers mature on the Wiki, perhaps it'd be possible to move them to the SGML docs (and reduce the Wiki answer to just a pointer). -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I think getting rid of the FAQ completely is not necessarily a good > idea; it seems useful as a collection of interesting questions. Moving > the contents to new pages is probably OK. Also, as the answers mature > on the Wiki, perhaps it'd be possible to move them to the SGML docs (and > reduce the Wiki answer to just a pointer). Yes, that's about the right plan.