Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar abr 26 12:44:39 -0300 2011:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > > Also, most of the sections are pretty short. Making each of them a
> > > chapter seems a waste. I think some of them deserve a full chapter
> > > (dblink, citext?, hstore, intarray, ltree, pgbench, pgcrypto, pgtrgm?,
> > > pg_upgrade, tablefunc), but most don't. (Some of the others could,
> > > perhaps, get moved under "Reference").
> > >
> > > 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.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
