X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB6F89DD298 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:15:56 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 29542-01-7 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:15:52 -0400 (AST) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4049F9DCE35 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:15:50 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DD262C995 for ; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:15:51 -0400 (AST) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27880-06; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:15:43 -0400 (AST) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-82-85.eastlink.ca [24.222.82.85]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E02CC62C989; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:15:42 -0400 (AST) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D6FC04813F; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:15:42 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5E93473D5; Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:15:42 -0400 (AST) Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 15:15:42 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" X-X-Sender: scrappy@ganymede.hub.org To: "Joshua D. Drake" cc: Magnus Hagander , Robert Treat , pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 7.3 docs In-Reply-To: <4409C7B9.3050208@commandprompt.com> Message-ID: <20060304151220.H1058@ganymede.hub.org> References: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA0F82F@algol.sollentuna.se> <4409C7B9.3050208@commandprompt.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.474 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.005, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE=0.479] X-Spam-Score: 0.474 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200603/28 X-Sequence-Number: 9618 On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> I thought that was pre-8.1. :-) >> >> But yeah, it's a point. I'll look towards other more efficient ways to >> decreas the docs build process :-) >> > I don't think we need to keep the 7.3 interactive docs... The static > docs are probably still good to have around. I'm about 50-50 split on this one ... but, if we are still actively supporting a version of PostgreSQL, we are acknowledging that ppl *are* still using it, and, therefore, ppl could still be annotating the interactie docs ... But ... the docs themselves are pretty static, so *why* are they being regenerated on a regular basis in the first place? Couldn't you just regenerate those files that have comments attached to them, instead of all of them each time? It would make the mirrors faster too, since they wouldn't have to pull down new copies of the complete docs each time, but only those pages that have actually had changes made to them ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664