From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Oisin Glynn <me(at)oisinglynn(dot)com>, pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] COPY command documentation |
Date: | 2006-03-23 22:46:51 |
Message-ID: | 20060323224651.GD6106@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-general |
On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 04:46:02PM -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> > ...and it's unlikely that they will, now or later, without
> > somebody whose whole job is to monitor those comments and make
> > patches.
>
> Well, we do make some attempt at rolling comments into the docs
> where appropriate, but we could certainly use more dedicated
> contributors in that area.
If we're going to get dedicated contributors, we could direct their
efforts to things a *lot* more productive than this. Improving the
formal docs, for example.
> > I'd like to make a Modest Proposalâ¢: Let's take down the
> > interactive documents and, in their place, put up a request that
> > doc patches be sent to -docs.
> >
> > What say?
>
> I'd say you're anti-interactive comments :-)
I'm not against them. I'm just *for* improving the existing docs, and
those comments don't (and won't, very likely) have any pipeline into
those. Are you personally volunteering for this task, Robert?
> More importantly, people just aren't going to to write patches for
> doc additions... the overhead is several orders of magnitudes
> greater than filling at a web form... so getting rid of the comments
> is sure to lose any gains that we receive.
What gains? As I said, I'm not against it, but right now, those
things just go down the memory hole to the benefit of nobody. The
detriment, I'd say, because somebody has wasted their time.
> What I have tried to garner support for in the past was to either
> direct those submission to this group for approval/rejection, which
> would make the folks generally interested in docs directly involved
> in the process.
Somebody has to vet this. Please feel free to step up :)
> The other option would be to mail approved doc comments to this
> group so that someone could work them up into doc patches if
> applicable. That really is a factor, most of the comments would need
> to be reworded to be added into the docs proper.
>
> In the past these ideas were rejected as either off-topic or that it
> would turn this list into a high traffic list... if peoples opinions
> have changed, it could be arranged.
I'm voicing a rejection for 'em again on the same grounds. Until we
have a person whose paid, full-time job is web-comment rassling, this
is a non-starter.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Treat | 2006-03-24 00:51:14 | Re: [GENERAL] COPY command documentation |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-23 22:16:47 | Re: [GENERAL] COPY command documentation |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Crawford | 2006-03-23 22:47:51 | Re: version problem with pg_dump |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-03-23 22:26:10 | Re: version problem with pg_dump |