| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: documentation structure |
| Date: | 2024-07-18 20:40:49 |
| Message-ID: | 3992770.1721335249@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I'm opposed to having a separate file for every function.
I also think that would be a disaster. It would result in a huge
number of files which would make global editing (eg markup changes)
really painful, and it by no means flattens the document structure.
Somewhere there will still need to be decisions that functions
A, B, C go into one documentation section while D, E, F go somewhere
else.
> I think
> breaking up func.sgml into one piece per sect1 is about right. If that
> proves cumbersome still we can look at breaking it up further, but let's
> start with that.
+1
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2024-07-18 20:47:30 | Re: Report search_path value back to the client. |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2024-07-18 20:33:08 | Re: documentation structure |