From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <201005280314.o4S3EmI22630@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: Londiste
In-Reply-To: <4BFEDF29.3040908@kaltenbrunner.cc>
To: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 23:14:48 -0400 (EDT)
CC: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com>,
	Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > The point is that there is a lot of replication information I don't want
> > to merge into that SGML page so even if we mention "Londiste", the wiki
> > reference is still useful.  I have the same problem with mentioning
> > pooling in the docs --- there is no natural place to put it, but I can
> > reference the wiki from the performance SGML docs.
> 
> well the problem seems to be that we are basically trying to recreate 
> the stuff on the wiki in the main docs in a way that might end up in 
> being outdated all the time.
> I think that we need to draw a clear line where we do external links 
> (random sites or the wiki) and internal docs. everything that is the 
> core product needs to be in the main docs if we go above that (and that 
> includes all the replication stuff and whatnot) we should just reference 
> an external source (wiki.postgresql.org prefered - fallback to something 
> else) but maintaining just some stuff in our own docs seems just wrong...

Yea, the wiki information is far too bulky to fit into our docs, and
maintaining it in our docs isn't worthwhile because it is more
_suggestions_ than critical information.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com