"Euler Taveira" <euler@eulerto.com> writes:
> There is also tools like pgPedia [1] that provides a command / function
> history. Unless there is a way to automate this request as Alvaro said, it
> would impose extra work by adding tags to mark that a feature adds a keyword
> and/or value. What happen if a deprecated keyword / value was removed? The
> synopsis content can be rearranged too. I have a gut feeling that some work
> should be done manually.
There's no doubt that we could get *better* results with the addition
of manual effort. But even htmldiff as it stands today produces
*usable* results (I tried it on a couple of versions of the COPY
reference page). Given that we've not offered something like this
at all before, I think it's silly to put in a lot of up-front effort
in advance of seeing what the demand really is.
In any case, I concur with the other committers that there is simply
no way we're going to accept manual change markup as an additional
expectation for documentation commits. It's hard enough already.
regards, tom lane
