Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C3674763A6 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 20:00:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [64.49.215.141]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04124475B8E for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 20:00:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [64.49.215.141]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C868A9DD0; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 21:00:05 -0400 (AST) Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 21:00:04 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Lamar Owen Cc: Tom Lane , Joe Conway , Peter Eisentraut , "" Subject: Re: Documentation in book length In-Reply-To: <200301021841.23651.lamar.owen@wgcr.org> Message-ID: <20030102205943.U40620@hub.org> References: <3E14C75A.90700@joeconway.com> <5134.1041550327@sss.pgh.pa.us> <200301021841.23651.lamar.owen@wgcr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/6 X-Sequence-Number: 1606 On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Lamar Owen wrote: > 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. they look like our docs ... what is different?