From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib |
Date: | 2007-01-31 04:05:00 |
Message-ID: | 2DBE4300-3E9A-466F-ACBF-8C8A0EEF0E42@seespotcode.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 31, 2007, at 12:42 , David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 03:49:14PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> 6. they all need proper docs. READMEs and the like are nowhere
>> near good
>> enough.
>
> Agreed. I'm thinking a new major section in the SGML docs is in order
> with a subsection for each contrib/ piece underneath.
I agree re: new section. Are you thinking that all contrib docs would
be built automatically, even if the individual extensions (neé
contrib modules?) aren't installed? I think that would definitely
raise awareness of the extensions that are available.
I'd also like to see being able to add docs for non-core extensions
(e.g., ip4r) to the main documentation. Not sure what that would
involve: rebuilding the tocs and index, besides the new pages
themselves? Or perhaps just a rebuild of the complete docs? I haven't
had docs building on a local system for a couple of years, so I'm not
it a position currently to play around with this, but it's something
I'd love to learn how to do.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-31 04:16:28 | Re: [PATCHES] pg_standby |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2007-01-31 03:42:20 | Re: Modifying and solidifying contrib |