Re: Suggested changes to Book pages

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/books/

Suggested changes based upon feedback from publisher

* Each book should have "Language: XXXX" as part of its metadata, so
people don't waste time looking at books not relevant to them

* The books should be arranged by version, so we have Version 7, Version
8 and Version 9.

* "PostgreSQL Reference Manual - Volume 1-3" is actually the manual for
PostgreSQL 8.2, so we should mark that clearly to avoid confusion.

* The Douglas' book is mentioned twice, for both versions. Nobody wants
to buy the first version anymore, so we should remove that.

Thanks,

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/books/
>
> Suggested changes based upon feedback from publisher
>
> * Each book should have "Language: XXXX" as part of its metadata, so
> people don't waste time looking at books not relevant to them
>
> * The books should be arranged by version, so we have Version 7, Version
> 8 and Version 9.
>
> * "PostgreSQL Reference Manual - Volume 1-3" is actually the manual for
> PostgreSQL 8.2, so we should mark that clearly to avoid confusion.
>
> * The Douglas' book is mentioned twice, for both versions. Nobody wants
> to buy the first version anymore, so we should remove that.

Did this fall through the cracks?

I think marking version numbers for each book is a good idea, though I
would be inclined to get more specific than 7/8/9.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/books/
>>
>> Suggested changes based upon feedback from publisher
>>
>> * Each book should have "Language: XXXX" as part of its metadata, so
>> people don't waste time looking at books not relevant to them
>>
>> * The books should be arranged by version, so we have Version 7, Version
>> 8 and Version 9.
>>
>> * "PostgreSQL Reference Manual - Volume 1-3" is actually the manual for
>> PostgreSQL 8.2, so we should mark that clearly to avoid confusion.
>>
>> * The Douglas' book is mentioned twice, for both versions. Nobody wants
>> to buy the first version anymore, so we should remove that.
>
> Did this fall through the cracks?
>
> I think marking version numbers for each book is a good idea, though I
> would be inclined to get more specific than 7/8/9.

Probably, as most of the webteam were in SF. I would point out though
(as this sort of thing comes up quite often), that just like the main
project we don't just start hacking on code on demand (unless there's
a bug). It's still a volunteer effort, so we have to rely on someone
having the time and inclination to work on it. Patches are, of course,
always welcome.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 20:54, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/books/
>>>
>>> Suggested changes based upon feedback from publisher
>>>
>>> * Each book should have "Language: XXXX" as part of its metadata, so
>>> people don't waste time looking at books not relevant to them
>>>
>>> * The books should be arranged by version, so we have Version 7, Version
>>> 8 and Version 9.
>>>
>>> * "PostgreSQL Reference Manual - Volume 1-3" is actually the manual for
>>> PostgreSQL 8.2, so we should mark that clearly to avoid confusion.
>>>
>>> * The Douglas' book is mentioned twice, for both versions. Nobody wants
>>> to buy the first version anymore, so we should remove that.
>>
>> Did this fall through the cracks?
>>
>> I think marking version numbers for each book is a good idea, though I
>> would be inclined to get more specific than 7/8/9.
>
> Probably, as most of the webteam were in SF. I would point out though
> (as this sort of thing comes up quite often), that just like the main
> project we don't just start hacking on code on demand (unless there's
> a bug). It's still a volunteer effort, so we have to rely on someone
> having the time and inclination to work on it. Patches are, of course,
> always welcome.

It did not, actually. It's sitting on my TODO list. Which is grown to
a large size while I was away for three weeks, but it's there still
:-)

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> Probably, as most of the webteam were in SF. I would point out though
> (as this sort of thing comes up quite often), that just like the main
> project we don't just start hacking on code on demand (unless there's
> a bug). It's still a volunteer effort, so we have to rely on someone
> having the time and inclination to work on it. Patches are, of course,
> always welcome.

Huh, good to know. Where is the repository?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On ons, 2010-11-10 at 14:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think marking version numbers for each book is a good idea, though I
> would be inclined to get more specific than 7/8/9.

How do you know which exact version a particular book covers? Isn't
mentioned the date of publication a more neutral and robust approach?

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>> Probably, as most of the webteam were in SF. I would point out though
>> (as this sort of thing comes up quite often), that just like the main
>> project we don't just start hacking on code on demand (unless there's
>> a bug). It's still a volunteer effort, so we have to rely on someone
>> having the time and inclination to work on it. Patches are, of course,
>> always welcome.
>
> Huh, good to know.  Where is the repository?

https://pgweb.postgresql.org/ - the files you want are most likely
under trunk/portal/template/en in the SVN repo.

(and yes, we know the cert has expired - the whole system is going away soon).

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 23:57 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
> >> Probably, as most of the webteam were in SF. I would point out though
> >> (as this sort of thing comes up quite often), that just like the main
> >> project we don't just start hacking on code on demand (unless there's
> >> a bug). It's still a volunteer effort, so we have to rely on someone
> >> having the time and inclination to work on it. Patches are, of course,
> >> always welcome.
> >
> > Huh, good to know. Where is the repository?
>
> https://pgweb.postgresql.org/ - the files you want are most likely
> under trunk/portal/template/en in the SVN repo.
>
> (and yes, we know the cert has expired - the whole system is going away soon).

Thanks. No problem submitting patches for this, just not yet.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On ons, 2010-11-10 at 14:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think marking version numbers for each book is a good idea, though I
>> would be inclined to get more specific than 7/8/9.
>
> How do you know which exact version a particular book covers?  Isn't
> mentioned the date of publication a more neutral and robust approach?

I can't imagine that figuring out the versions the book covers is all
that hard, and it seems a lot more useful than just the publication
date, although of course we could have both.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Le 11/11/2010 19:05, Robert Haas a écrit :
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> On ons, 2010-11-10 at 14:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I think marking version numbers for each book is a good idea, though I
>>> would be inclined to get more specific than 7/8/9.
>>
>> How do you know which exact version a particular book covers? Isn't
>> mentioned the date of publication a more neutral and robust approach?
>
> I can't imagine that figuring out the versions the book covers is all
> that hard, and it seems a lot more useful than just the publication
> date, although of course we could have both.
>

Sure, it seems much more useful. If we don't know for some books, we can
still put "?" for them. I guess it will be for old books, and who wants
to buy a book on PostgreSQL written in 2005? except nerds like me :)

And about Simon's initial mail on this thread, definitive +1 from me for
his four suggested changes.

--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com

Le 11/11/2010 19:23, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
> Le 11/11/2010 19:05, Robert Haas a écrit :
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>> On ons, 2010-11-10 at 14:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> I think marking version numbers for each book is a good idea, though I
>>>> would be inclined to get more specific than 7/8/9.
>>>
>>> How do you know which exact version a particular book covers? Isn't
>>> mentioned the date of publication a more neutral and robust approach?
>>
>> I can't imagine that figuring out the versions the book covers is all
>> that hard, and it seems a lot more useful than just the publication
>> date, although of course we could have both.
>>
>
> Sure, it seems much more useful. If we don't know for some books, we can
> still put "?" for them. I guess it will be for old books, and who wants
> to buy a book on PostgreSQL written in 2005? except nerds like me :)
>
> And about Simon's initial mail on this thread, definitive +1 from me for
> his four suggested changes.
>

"Enough whining, just do it!". See patch attached :)

Hope it fixes all issues (I actually did other minor fixes).

--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
<guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> Le 11/11/2010 19:23, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
>> Le 11/11/2010 19:05, Robert Haas a écrit :
>>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> On ons, 2010-11-10 at 14:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>> I think marking version numbers for each book is a good idea, though I
>>>>> would be inclined to get more specific than 7/8/9.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know which exact version a particular book covers?  Isn't
>>>> mentioned the date of publication a more neutral and robust approach?
>>>
>>> I can't imagine that figuring out the versions the book covers is all
>>> that hard, and it seems a lot more useful than just the publication
>>> date, although of course we could have both.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, it seems much more useful. If we don't know for some books, we can
>> still put "?" for them. I guess it will be for old books, and who wants
>> to buy a book on PostgreSQL written in 2005? except nerds like me :)
>>
>> And about Simon's initial mail on this thread, definitive +1 from me for
>> his four suggested changes.
>>
>
> "Enough whining, just do it!". See patch attached :)
>
> Hope it fixes all issues (I actually did other minor fixes).

I was imagining the list of versions as a range associated with each
book, rather than assigning each book to a single version.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Le 11/11/2010 21:33, Robert Haas a écrit :
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>> Le 11/11/2010 19:23, Guillaume Lelarge a écrit :
>>> Le 11/11/2010 19:05, Robert Haas a écrit :
>>>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>>>> On ons, 2010-11-10 at 14:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>>>> I think marking version numbers for each book is a good idea, though I
>>>>>> would be inclined to get more specific than 7/8/9.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know which exact version a particular book covers? Isn't
>>>>> mentioned the date of publication a more neutral and robust approach?
>>>>
>>>> I can't imagine that figuring out the versions the book covers is all
>>>> that hard, and it seems a lot more useful than just the publication
>>>> date, although of course we could have both.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, it seems much more useful. If we don't know for some books, we can
>>> still put "?" for them. I guess it will be for old books, and who wants
>>> to buy a book on PostgreSQL written in 2005? except nerds like me :)
>>>
>>> And about Simon's initial mail on this thread, definitive +1 from me for
>>> his four suggested changes.
>>>
>>
>> "Enough whining, just do it!". See patch attached :)
>>
>> Hope it fixes all issues (I actually did other minor fixes).
>
> I was imagining the list of versions as a range associated with each
> book, rather than assigning each book to a single version.
>

I don't see how you can assign a range of versions. Can you tell me what
you would have done for the two new books?

--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I was imagining the list of versions as a range associated with each
> book, rather than assigning each book to a single version.

Yeah, me too. FYI, here's what it currently looks like:
http://dave.webdev.postgresql.org/docs/books. The variable width of
each section looks weird too.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Le 11/11/2010 21:48, Dave Page a écrit :
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I was imagining the list of versions as a range associated with each
>> book, rather than assigning each book to a single version.
>
> Yeah, me too.

Example, please :)

> FYI, here's what it currently looks like:
> http://dave.webdev.postgresql.org/docs/books. The variable width of
> each section looks weird too.
>

Yeah. I should probably get rid of the title and add a "Release" tag in
the information column. Would it be better?

--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
<guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> Le 11/11/2010 21:48, Dave Page a écrit :
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I was imagining the list of versions as a range associated with each
>>> book, rather than assigning each book to a single version.
>>
>> Yeah, me too.
>
> Example, please :)
>
>> FYI, here's what it currently looks like:
>> http://dave.webdev.postgresql.org/docs/books. The variable width of
>> each section looks weird too.
>>
>
> Yeah. I should probably get rid of the title and add a "Release" tag in
> the information column. Would it be better?

Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. "Current version at publication"?

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I was imagining the list of versions as a range associated with each
>> book, rather than assigning each book to a single version.

> Yeah, me too.

I was supposing it would mean "latest version covered". It would be
very hard to nail down an "earliest version covered", even assuming
that anyone cared which is doubtful.

regards, tom lane

Le 11/11/2010 22:01, Dave Page a écrit :
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
> <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>> Le 11/11/2010 21:48, Dave Page a écrit :
>>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> I was imagining the list of versions as a range associated with each
>>>> book, rather than assigning each book to a single version.
>>>
>>> Yeah, me too.
>>
>> Example, please :)
>>
>>> FYI, here's what it currently looks like:
>>> http://dave.webdev.postgresql.org/docs/books. The variable width of
>>> each section looks weird too.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. I should probably get rid of the title and add a "Release" tag in
>> the information column. Would it be better?
>
> Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. "Current version at publication"?
>

New patch attached.

--
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 9:23 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
<guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> Le 11/11/2010 22:01, Dave Page a écrit :
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
>> <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>>> Le 11/11/2010 21:48, Dave Page a écrit :
>>>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> I was imagining the list of versions as a range associated with each
>>>>> book, rather than assigning each book to a single version.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, me too.
>>>
>>> Example, please :)
>>>
>>>> FYI, here's what it currently looks like:
>>>> http://dave.webdev.postgresql.org/docs/books. The variable width of
>>>> each section looks weird too.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah. I should probably get rid of the title and add a "Release" tag in
>>> the information column. Would it be better?
>>
>> Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. "Current version at publication"?
>>
>
> New patch attached.
>

Thanks, applied. Will show up in a couple of hours.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> I don't see how you can assign a range of versions. Can you tell me what
> you would have done for the two new books?
>

Well, my book covers 8.1 through 9.0 to the extent it's practical, while
Simon and Hannu's focuses on the right way to do things in 9.0 only.
But my multi-version focus is a unique thing as far as I know right
now. It's not really worth making changes to the books page to cover.
I don't recall any previous English title being so concerned about how
things worked in multiple versions, beyond perhaps a quick "this was
just added in the last version" note in spots.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
"PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books

Dave Page wrote:
> FYI, here's what it currently looks like:
> http://dave.webdev.postgresql.org/docs/books. The variable width of
> each section looks weird too.
>

For the one you're missing a version on: the "PostgreSQL Programmer's
Guide" edited by Thomas Lockhart is a hardcopy version of that section
of docs from V7.0.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> FYI, here's what it currently looks like:
>> http://dave.webdev.postgresql.org/docs/books. The variable width of
>> each section looks weird too.
>>
>
> For the one you're missing a version on:  the "PostgreSQL Programmer's
> Guide" edited by Thomas Lockhart is a hardcopy version of that section of
> docs from V7.0.

Thanks, fixed.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company