Re: Doc translation

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Doc translation
Date: 2001-06-18 22:15:32
Message-ID: 3B2E7D84.1E6C8FC1@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > we could move the english docs out of pgsql itself and into this module
> > too, as:
> > pgsql-docs/en
> Hmm, I'm not sure that that's a good idea; seems it would lose the
> coupling between versions of the source and versions of the
> documentation.

We could (and should, imho) leave the English docs where they are, but
they could be included as a module in the pgsql-docs repository.

> Anyone have experience with managing this sort of situation under CVS?

Yes.

> Is separate tree or combined tree better?

I would suggest defining a "pgsql-docs" module, which might contain the
actual code for non-English docs. We can define a logical module
"pgsql-en" which is included in the *logical* pgsql-docs module (the
latter also contains the *physical* pgsql-docs module).

We've done this on other projects. I can help set up the module
definitions (which are fairly simple when worked out, but perhaps not
trivial to derive from first principles. I'll steal the solution from
work I've done earlier ;)

- Thomas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hiroshi Inoue 2001-06-18 23:48:43 Re: Update on Access 97 and = NULL
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-06-18 21:40:22 Re: [PATCH] untrusted plperl