Re: [DOCS] maintenance diff

2006-07-14 Thread Robert Treat
On Thursday 13 July 2006 20:58, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, > > Updated to have stronger wording for vacuuming. Cleaned out some extra > superlatives. Added a couple of index entries for Routine Maintenance > and added entry specific to Analyze. I noticed a number of typos in this... s/Gbord

Re: [DOCS] maintenance diff

2006-07-14 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Robert Treat wrote: On Thursday 13 July 2006 20:58, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Hello, Updated to have stronger wording for vacuuming. Cleaned out some extra superlatives. Added a couple of index entries for Routine Maintenance and added entry specific to Analyze. I noticed a number of typos in th

[DOCS] Maintenance and External Projects (try 2)

2006-07-14 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Hello, I did further work on both of these. Cleaned up some stupid spelling and typos (forgot an s here, a y there ;)). The commit log doesn't change from previous except that I added a reference to Sourceforge for external projects, and I specified that there are three required routing main

Re: [DOCS] Maintenance and External Projects (try 2)

2006-07-14 Thread Tom Lane
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please let me know if there is anything else you would like me to do or add. A round of copy-editing seems indicated, at least. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4

Re: [DOCS] Maintenance and External Projects (try 2)

2006-07-14 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Tom Lane wrote: "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Please let me know if there is anything else you would like me to do or add. A round of copy-editing seems indicated, at least. Oh, no doubt. I tried to fix as much as I find, including a bunch of stuff already there. However, I

Re: [DOCS] Maintenance and External Projects (try 2)

2006-07-14 Thread Robert Treat
On Friday 14 July 2006 15:23, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Please let me know if there is anything else you would like me to do or > >> add. > > > > A round of copy-editing seems indicated, at least. > > Oh, no doubt. I tried to fix