Message-ID: <4409EB3B.4060306@commandprompt.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:32:11 -0800
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Organization: Command Prompt, Inc.
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
CC: Magnus Hagander <mha@sollentuna.net>,
	Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>, pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 7.3 docs
References: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA0F82F@algol.sollentuna.se>
	<4409C7B9.3050208@commandprompt.com>
	<20060304151220.H1058@ganymede.hub.org>
In-Reply-To: <20060304151220.H1058@ganymede.hub.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>
> 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 ...
>
Speaking of this... why doesn't every single page of the 7.3, 7.4 and 
8.0 docs say:

8.1.3 is the latest stable version of PostgreSQL.

AND:

7.4.x (or 7.3.x etc) is the latest version of the 7.4 series. If you are 
not running this version you need to upgrade.


> 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
>