Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 17:01:06 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= Purtz <juergen@purtz.de>
Cc: pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org,
	Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>,
	Liudmila Mantrova <l.mantrova@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Shrinking SVG (Again)
Message-ID: <20200214200106.GA12567@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <d4175e85-61c6-18d5-65c9-a9e19795f3e2@purtz.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Feb-14, Jürgen Purtz wrote:

> The attached patch extends the previous one by one more figure, a rework of
> the old explanations plus additional explanations.

So now we have two glossaries being proposed [1] [2], and they don't
have much in common with each other.  What to do now?  If we can get the
authors to agree on what patch to submit, we can move forward.

I suggest to make a glossary be 0001, and then the other patches can be
0002 or further.

(I also CC Liudmila, who mentioned the topic of a glossary in [3]).

[1] https://postgr.es/m/d4175e85-61c6-18d5-65c9-a9e19795f3e2@purtz.de
[2] https://postgr.es/m/CADkLM=fx_kNCCz97HSXMBgTSY50Es_czsNZJrdCBtpYiT_VLHA@mail.gmail.com
[3] https://postgr.es/m/CAEkD-mBFQb61gHNWR0cN5K4G4q-i1PRwNn_OKVkKSaaJa5_LbA@mail.gmail.com

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services