Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8F022E01D5 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:26:25 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32467-08 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:26:20 -0400 (AST) Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-159.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.159]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD26F2E0132 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 14:26:21 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.1.226] (or-69-34-217-90.sta.embarqhsd.net [69.34.217.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lBGIQ8vf012546 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:26:11 -0800 Message-ID: <47656DC3.5080700@commandprompt.com> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:26:11 -0800 From: "Joshua D. Drake" Organization: Command Prompt, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (Windows/20070809) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: Simon Riggs , Bruce Momjian , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Plug in docs References: <200712160812.lBG8C5x15519@momjian.us> <47654B3A.7030206@commandprompt.com> <1197826806.12912.37.camel@ebony.site> <27293.1197827992@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <27293.1197827992@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (lists.commandprompt.com [207.173.203.159]); Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:26:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200712/55 X-Sequence-Number: 4723 Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs writes: >> On Sun, 2007-12-16 at 07:58 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> Bruce Momjian wrote: >>>> I think these are >>>> documented-in-the-source-code type issues. >>> If they are an API they need to be documented. Code is poor (even well >>> documented code) substitute for good old fashioned docs. > >> Agreed. > > I don't agree --- I think the above opinion is rooted in closed-source > documentation practices where you *have to* document things without > reference to the code. In an open-source situation the ground rules > are completely different, and we shouldn't make unnecessary work for > ourselves. No it is not rooted in closed-source documentation practices. It is rooted is Professional documentation practices. > > Also, if you think any of these are APIs in the sense that we promise > never to change them, you're mistaken. (Again, it's not so much the > hook itself that's the problem, as all the stuff that the hooked-in > function needs to know about.) I believe Simon's point is not invalidated by this email. If anything it reinforces it. We are not looking for War and Peace, we are looking for overview. An overview can be as simple as discussing in broad strokes what the each API is for, the current function set and points to where in the code to look for further information. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake