Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85FC01337B82 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:10:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 00907-04 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 16:10:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 996C713364DE for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:10:22 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id p3QGABms008204; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:10:11 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruce Momjian cc: Alvaro Herrera , Peter Eisentraut , Josh Kupershmidt , pgsql-docs Subject: Re: Building PDFs error: \pdfendlink ended up in different nesting level than \pd In-reply-to: <201104261600.p3QG0EV20362@momjian.us> References: <201104261600.p3QG0EV20362@momjian.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:00:14 -0400" Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:10:11 -0400 Message-ID: <8203.1303834211@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201104/93 X-Sequence-Number: 6664 Bruce Momjian 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