Le 11/11/2010 19:23, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
> Le 11/11/2010 19:05, Robert Haas a écrit :
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> On ons, 2010-11-10 at 14:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> I think marking version numbers for each book is a good idea, though I
>>>> would be inclined to get more specific than 7/8/9.
>>>
>>> How do you know which exact version a particular book covers? Isn't
>>> mentioned the date of publication a more neutral and robust approach?
>>
>> I can't imagine that figuring out the versions the book covers is all
>> that hard, and it seems a lot more useful than just the publication
>> date, although of course we could have both.
>>
>
> Sure, it seems much more useful. If we don't know for some books, we can
> still put "?" for them. I guess it will be for old books, and who wants
> to buy a book on PostgreSQL written in 2005? except nerds like me :)
>
> And about Simon's initial mail on this thread, definitive +1 from me for
> his four suggested changes.
>
"Enough whining, just do it!". See patch attached :)
Hope it fixes all issues (I actually did other minor fixes).
--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com
