Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A89474E53 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:41:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from utility.wgcr.org (unknown [206.74.232.205]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C946476344 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:41:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from utility.wgcr.org ([10.1.0.2]) by utility.wgcr.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h02NfMla002985; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:41:22 -0500 Received: from ([10.1.2.242]) by utility.wgcr.org (MailMonitor for SMTP v1.2.0 ) ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:41:22 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" From: Lamar Owen To: Tom Lane , Joe Conway Subject: Re: Documentation in book length Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:41:23 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: Peter Eisentraut , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org References: <3E14C75A.90700@joeconway.com> <5134.1041550327@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <5134.1041550327@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <200301021841.23651.lamar.owen@wgcr.org> X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/5 X-Sequence-Number: 1605 On Thursday 02 January 2003 18:32, Tom Lane wrote: > BTW, the Red Hat RHDB group has spent a fair amount of time rethinking > the overall organization of the docs and trying to organize 'em in a > more logical order. They'd like to contribute that work back so they > don't have to maintain a variant version of the docs. Is this a good > time to think about looking over what they've done? http://sources.redhat.com/rhdb/ See the links on the left under 'RHDB 2.1 Documentation'. They are quite good. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11