Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA5F9FA6BB for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:37:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36890-03-3 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:37:40 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from k2smtpout04-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (k2smtpout04-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.189.166]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 996639F9B65 for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:37:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 32591 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2007 22:37:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.cowdot.com) (208.109.83.21) by k2smtpout04-01.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.189.166) with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2007 22:37:39 -0000 Received: by mail.cowdot.com (Postfix, from userid 99) id 65DCD2AF48A; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:37:19 -0700 (MST) Received: from albert.local (111.pool85-52-225.static.orange.es [85.52.225.111]) by mail.cowdot.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8042AF46C; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 15:37:15 -0700 (MST) From: Albert Cervera i Areny Organization: NaN To: Josh Berkus Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Contrib modules documentation online Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:37:31 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org References: <200708290157.07968.albert@nan-tic.com> <200708291009.07942.josh@agliodbs.com> In-Reply-To: <200708291009.07942.josh@agliodbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200708300037.31851.albert@nan-tic.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200708/37 X-Sequence-Number: 4384 > > I'm very strongly in favor of having this documentation. However, I think > it might make sense to put "Contrib Modules" as a section under either > "Reference" or "Appendices". Also, I don't think it's necessary to make > each command option a separate subchapter, but I can see how that would be > hard to avoid in an automated system. It's not an automated system, README files have different structures so it's all manual work. That's why I asked how you think it should be organized. Anyone else thinks we should put it in Reference or Appendixes? About command options if done different things, it depends on the module I need to revisit this. I also think one command per subchapter isn't very handy. There's also the install issue. By now it's on the introduction of the chapter. And I've repeated it in some of the modules, not all. Do you think it be better put the exact instructions for compiling and installing for each one? What about 'extra' notes, such us some performance tests, and so one. Some of the notes should probably stay in the README files, just like the README files that can be found in some dirs of core. So I'd keep information targeted to developers into the README's and general info into the main doc. > > Guys, would it be out of the question to do this in 8.3? Please please? I will try to have everything before 8.3. I'd like it gave very little or no work to core developers. If so many people is interested you can help me revise it before the final version. By the way, if somebody has updated any of the contrib README files recently, please send me an e-mail and I'll check if I have the last changes in. -- Albert Cervera i Areny http://www.NaN-tic.com