Re: Interactive Documentation - how do you want it to

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Interactive Documentation - how do you want it to
Date: 2003-02-02 20:51:40
Message-ID: 1044219100.25208.29.camel@tokyo
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 2003-02-02 at 15:22, Dave Page wrote:
> - Each comment attaches only to the page name, version of the page to
> which it was submitted *and* subsequent versions (this is the current
> behaviour).
>
> - Each comment should attach to the page name to which it was submitted
> regardless of the version.

IMHO either one of these, considering below...

> 2) Bearing in mind your answer to the previous question, should all the
> comments be deleted when useful examples have been merged into the main
> documents (remember that the definition of 'useful' may vary), or should
> we only remove the 'junk' ones?

Once the comment's suggestion has been incorporated and the docs
updated, I think it should be removed. Just like in the rest of the
documentation, there's no point presenting duplicate content to the
user, so we should only keep the idocs comments that are still relevant.
The same goes for comments that have no value (e.g. support requests).

Cheers,

Neil
--
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2003-02-02 21:23:50 Re: [PERFORM] not using index for select min(...)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-02-02 20:50:37 Re: Last call for 7.3.2