public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: Josh Kupershmidt <[email protected]>
Cc: pgsql-docs <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Building PDFs error: \pdfendlink ended up in different nesting level than \pd
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:10:11 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

Bruce Momjian <[email protected]> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar abr 26 12:44:39 -0300 2011:
>>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>> Would it work to move only some?

>>> I think moving some would be even worse than what we have now, unless
>>> you can propose some logic about why they would be split.

>> Remember that this thread is about someone being unable to build a PDF
>> from our docs (and the proposed workaround being "insert more page
>> breaks"), not about how logical the documentation is.
>> 
>> In any case, the ones I listed are the ones that have more structure
>> documentation-wise (which also are the ones that have received more
>> attention and thus are of more interest to users), so there is some
>> logic behind it.
>> 
>> Am I saying that not all contrib modules are created equal?  Yes, I am.
>> So sue me.

> It is hard to see how a user is going to guess which ones are better
> than others when trying to find something in the docs.  I think we are
> going to need logical categories if we want to split them up.

I don't think this works.  Aside from the illogicality, what will you do
when somebody works a bit harder on one of the modules that have "short"
documentation?  Push it over into the other appendix in the next
release?  Ugh.

Unlike Bruce, I don't have any problem with pushing them all up to
chapter level.  One point of such a change is to make them more visible,
so I do not see it as a "disadvantage" that they'd all be visible in the
TOC --- more the opposite.

			regards, tom lane

view thread (26+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Building PDFs error: \pdfendlink ended up in different nesting level than \pd
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox