Re: RC3 ...
От | Joel Burton |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RC3 ... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0104071428340.5159-100000@olympus.scw.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RC3 ... (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 7 Apr 2001, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Thomas Lockhart writes: > > > > > The docs are ready for shipment. > > > Even better ... > > > Okay, let's let this sit as RC3 for the next week... > > > > I'll go ahead and start generating hardcopy, though I understand that it > > is no longer allowed into the shipping tarball :( > > I'm not speaking about "allowed", I'm merely talking about the state of > affairs since 7.0. If people think that the postscript format should be > in the main tarball, then why not, but IIRC this question was raised last > time around and the decision went the other way. Having had to d/l PG many times on many different machines, I'd be delighted if it came w/o .ps docs, and w/o the doc sources (the number of people who seem to be able to turn docbook into useful stuff seems to be << than people who can successful compile PG!). It sounds like the separate-tgz for docs and for Postscript makes perfect sense. Just make sure that it's *very* obvious where/how to get these, so that the mailing lists are deluged w/ 'where are the docs'? Just my .02, -- Joel Burton <jburton@scw.org> Director of Information Systems, Support Center of Washington
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: