On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:39:57PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Since I've spent a fair amount of brainpower trying to use
> rather than where possible, I'm not innately enthusiastic about
> a project whose end is to get rid of . I won't lose a lot of
> sleep over it if we decide to go that
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> However, that complaint was already lodged in another thread. What I
> think *this* thread is about is whether we ought to switch from the
> up-to-now-project-standard style
>
> ... how to frob your wug (see ) ...
>
> to
Robert Haas writes:
> Personally, I think that if the doc toolchain changeover changed the
> way xrefs render - and it seems that it did - that's a bug that ought
> to be fixed,
I quite agree. We'll have enough to do with the toolchain changeover;
we don't need random
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I don't think there are a lto of people who use dead tree editions anymore,
but they certainly do
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> whether to continue using "see section m.n"-type cross-references
For my part, I have a preference for including the section name
with the link text, although if it took much work to add it (rather
than being the new
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I don't think there are a lto of people who use dead tree editions anymore,
>>> but they certainly do exist. A lot of people use the PDFs though,
>>> particularly for offline
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't think there are a lto of people who use dead tree editions anymore,
>> but they certainly do exist. A lot of people use the PDFs though,
>> particularly for offline reading or loading them in ebook readers. So it
>>