From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Contrib modules documentation online
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:30:11 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	Albert Cervera i Areny <albert@nan-tic.com>
References: <200708290157.07968.albert@nan-tic.com>
	<200708301336.01489.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<46D6C279.5050200@dunslane.net>
In-Reply-To: <46D6C279.5050200@dunslane.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200708301530.12873.peter_e@gmx.net>

Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2007 15:13 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
> What? No it doesn't. You have missed the key word in the sentence above:
> "standard". The idea is that the docs will describe the *standard*
> modules, i.e. those that ship with the PostgreSQL core distribution
> (because they are currently in contrib).
>
> If you want to design a pluggable documentation system then go for it,
> but it's not required by what I understand is the consensus plan for
> contrib.

That brings up additional questions such as what is standard and whose 
consensus.  You initially referred to Perl, and I note that Perl modules 
shipped with the main Perl package ("standard"?) and those that are not 
provide access to their facilities in identical ways.  That's as far as I can 
read your mind anyway. ;-)

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/