Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CAAA4764CA for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 05:30:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 91F6047654A for ; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 05:27:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (qmail 6790 invoked by uid 0); 4 Jan 2003 10:27:43 -0000 Received: from pd902f0a0.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (217.2.240.160) by mail.gmx.net (mp021-rz3) with SMTP; 4 Jan 2003 10:27:43 -0000 Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 11:36:22 +0100 (CET) From: Peter Eisentraut X-X-Sender: peter@localhost.localdomain To: Tom Lane Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Documentation in book length In-Reply-To: <5134.1041550327@sss.pgh.pa.us> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/16 X-Sequence-Number: 1616 Tom Lane writes: > 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? Yes, we shall use them as an example of how not to do it. I spend quite some time today to analyze their documentation arrangement, but it doesn't make sense to me. There are a couple of obvious rearrangements and a couple of things we could think about if they were briefly explained, but overall it looks pretty confused, to say it nicely. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net