Re: A FAQ that needs updating?
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A FAQ that needs updating? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 479F6363.6040209@hagander.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: A FAQ that needs updating? ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: A FAQ that needs updating?
|
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:01:26 -0500 (EST) > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > >> Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:45:43 -0500 (EST) >>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >>> >>>> One week later and this web site remains unchanged. :-( >>>> >>>> http://www.postgresql.org/about/press/faq >>> Who controls the FAQ? >> I would like to know myself. I assume Josh Berkus but am just >> guessing. Can we just remove the last three items on that page? > > O.k. just so I am 100% clear :) We are talking about the /press/faq > right? If so... IMO the following needs to happen: > > The press FAQ should be a section (internal ref of course) within the > general FAQ as I am guessing there is some significant overlap. > > I believe that press should be replaced with the word Advocacy or maybe > Advocacy & Press. > > All redundant information should be removed between the general and > press advocacy sections. > > Add a section on the FAQ page for the Advocacy & Press section that > links to the section within the general FAQ. > > Appropriate rewrites put in place to push all requests for the old FAQ > to the new (and proper) one. > > Thoughts? IIRC, the press FAQ is translated to lots of languages, and the general one isn't. That said, I agree that it's a problem since it will often be outdated... //Magnus
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: