Re: [PATCHES] docs done Re: [HACKERS] LIBPQ patches ...

Applied, or did I already say that?

> * Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> [000109 08:18] wrote:
> > Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> writes:
> > > At 05:27 PM 1/8/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> I also object strongly to the lack of documentation.
> >
> > > ... I know there are some folks who aren't native-english speakers, so
> > > perhaps you don't want to require that the implementor of such patches
> > > provide the final documentation wording. But the information should
> > > be there and spelled out in a form that can be very easily moved to
> > > the docs.
> >
> > Oh, absolutely. Thomas, our master of the docs, has always had the
> > policy of "give me some words, I'll take care of formatting and
> > editing..."
> >
> > I was probably too harsh on Alfred last night, since in fact his code
> > was fairly well commented, and some minimal doco could have been
> > extracted from the routine headers. But on a change like this, I think
> > some paragraphs of coherent high-level explanation are needed: what it
> > does, when and why you'd use it. I didn't see that anywhere...
>
> Here's the revised patch, it includes sgml docs and changes to
> ensure that old style connections behave the way they are expected
> to:
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026