Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B04DF476D75 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:32:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7B36476B06 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:32:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h02NW70U005135; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 18:32:07 -0500 (EST) To: Joe Conway Cc: Peter Eisentraut , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Documentation in book length In-reply-to: <3E14C75A.90700@joeconway.com> References: <3E14C75A.90700@joeconway.com> Comments: In-reply-to Joe Conway message dated "Thu, 02 Jan 2003 15:12:26 -0800" Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 18:32:07 -0500 Message-ID: <5134.1041550327@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/3 X-Sequence-Number: 1603 Joe Conway writes: > Making the docs into one book should also allow better hyperlink > cross-referencing. That will be a welcome improvement. Yes --- eliminating our silly "it's somewhere in that part" cross-references is quite sufficient reason in my mind to abandon the option of building the docs in sections. If we have to build the whole book every time, so be it. BTW, the Red Hat RHDB group has spent a fair amount of time rethinking the overall organization of the docs and trying to organize 'em in a more logical order. They'd like to contribute that work back so they don't have to maintain a variant version of the docs. Is this a good time to think about looking over what they've done? regards, tom lane