From: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] COPY command documentation
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 16:46:02 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3
Cc: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Jim Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>,
	Oisin Glynn <me@oisinglynn.com>,
	pgsql general <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
References: <4422B9F8.60100@oisinglynn.com>
	<483F344B-FF17-4DC5-8922-775213566788@pervasive.com>
	<20060323201250.GC6106@fetter.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060323201250.GC6106@fetter.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200603231646.02465.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>

On Thursday 23 March 2006 15:12, David Fetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 07:00:13PM +0100, Jim Nasby wrote:
> > On Mar 23, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Oisin Glynn wrote:
> > >I just discovered that the comments from 8.0 had the answer I was
> > >looking for but these comments are not in the 8.1 docs. Should the
> > >comments be rolled forward as new versions are created? Or if valid
> > >comments added to the docs themselves?
> > >
> > >http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/sql-copy.html
> > >
> > >http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.0/interactive/sql-copy.html
> >
> > No, comments don't roll forward.
>

The general consensus is that comments should not automatically roll forwar=
d,=20
since many comments are version specific.  People are of course free to=20
repost comments if they find them appropriate.=20

> ...and it's unlikely that they will, now or later, without somebody
> whose whole job is to monitor those comments and make patches.
>

Well, we do make some attempt at rolling comments into the docs where=20
appropriate, but we could certainly use more dedicated contributors in that=
=20
area. =20


> I'd like to make a Modest Proposal=E2=84=A2:  Let's take down the interac=
tive
> documents and, in their place, put up a request that doc patches be
> sent to -docs.
>
> What say?
>

I'd say you're anti-interactive comments :-)

More importantly, people just aren't going to to write patches for doc=20
additions... the overhead is several orders of magnitudes greater than=20
filling at a web form... so getting rid of the comments is sure to lose any=
=20
gains that we receive.  =20

What I have tried to garner support for in the past was to either direct th=
ose=20
submission to this group for approval/rejection, which would make the folks=
=20
generally interested in docs directly involved in the process.=20

The other option would be to mail approved doc comments to this group so th=
at=20
someone could work them up into doc patches if applicable. That really is a=
=20
factor, most of the comments would need to be reworded to be added into the=
=20
docs proper.=20

In the past these ideas were rejected as either off-topic or that it would=
=20
turn this list into a high traffic list... if peoples opinions have changed=
,=20
it could be arranged.=20

=2D-=20
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL