From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Interactive Documentation - how do you want it towork? |
Date: | 2003-02-03 14:42:29 |
Message-ID: | 03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B8259BBE@mail.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 03 February 2003 14:39
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Bruce Momjian; Neil Conway; PostgreSQL Hackers
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Interactive Documentation - how do you
> want it towork?
>
>
> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > Perhaps we should then prune the garbage out of the old
> version, and
> > make the comments version specific so that we start afresh with the
> > new docs, but leave the useful comments against the older versions?
>
> It seems clear to me that the comments *should* be version
> specific, if that's at all feasible. When we make a new
> release then we can start with zero comments if that seems
> appropriate --- but as long as an older set of docs remains
> on-line, it should have the comments that were made for it.
Yes, from the various discussions here and elsewhere I think this is
going to be the way to go. I will make the appropriate change now.
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | greg | 2003-02-03 14:47:02 | Re: PGP signing releases |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-03 14:42:02 | Re: targetlist functions part 1 (was [HACKERS] targetlist |