Thread: [DOCS] release date formatting
It has been pointed out a while ago that the "release date" formatting in the release notes is too flamboyant, more so under the new stylesheets. Here is a patch to make the formatting a bit more subdued. (Obviously, this needs to be expanded to older release notes as well.) -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Attachment
On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:35:06PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > It has been pointed out a while ago that the "release date" formatting > in the release notes is too flamboyant, more so under the new stylesheets. > > Here is a patch to make the formatting a bit more subdued. (Obviously, > this needs to be expanded to older release notes as well.) I see what you mean. I have changed the markup in head for all branches and backpatched this so when we copy release information to back branches, it matches. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:35:06PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> It has been pointed out a while ago that the "release date" formatting >> in the release notes is too flamboyant, more so under the new stylesheets. >> >> Here is a patch to make the formatting a bit more subdued. (Obviously, >> this needs to be expanded to older release notes as well.) > I see what you mean. I have changed the markup in head for all branches > and backpatched this so when we copy release information to back > branches, it matches. I'm a bit dubious about this: it may make things look nicer with the new docs toolchain, but did anyone check what it looks like with the old one? Also, now that you mention it, the ability to copy relnote files into older branches verbatim was already broken by commit 85c11324c. I got burnt by this while making the release notes last weekend, and was quite annoyed but there was no time to do anything about it then. Is there a way to fix that, perhaps by providing some kind of alias for the relevant section IDs? Hm, actually, renaming those section IDs broke more than ease of maintenance of the relnotes: the website no longer realizes that https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/pgwaldump.html has any connection to https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/pgxlogdump.html although ideally the former would be seen as the latest version of the latter. So that might provide more motivation to think of a smarter answer here. regards, tom lane
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 07:42:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:35:06PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> It has been pointed out a while ago that the "release date" formatting > >> in the release notes is too flamboyant, more so under the new stylesheets. > >> > >> Here is a patch to make the formatting a bit more subdued. (Obviously, > >> this needs to be expanded to older release notes as well.) > > > I see what you mean. I have changed the markup in head for all branches > > and backpatched this so when we copy release information to back > > branches, it matches. > > I'm a bit dubious about this: it may make things look nicer with the new > docs toolchain, but did anyone check what it looks like with the old one? I did not but the <note> tag really never made sense for the release note date anyway, so I assumed it would be fine. > Also, now that you mention it, the ability to copy relnote files into > older branches verbatim was already broken by commit 85c11324c. I got > burnt by this while making the release notes last weekend, and was quite > annoyed but there was no time to do anything about it then. Is there > a way to fix that, perhaps by providing some kind of alias for the > relevant section IDs? Yes, I noticed that myself so I assume we would have to copy just the new _sections_ to the back branches, instead of copying the entire file like we have done in the past, at least until this was fixed. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +