On 2/28/24 12:25, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 28 Feb 2024, at 18:02, Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 02:46:11PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 26 Feb 2024, at 21:30, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes:
I think this would be nice. If the Markdown version is reasonably readable
as plain-text, maybe we could avoid maintaining two READMEs files, too.
But overall, +1 to modernizing the README a bit.
Per past track record, we change the top-level README only once every
three years or so, so I doubt it'd be too painful to maintain two
versions of it.
It wont be, and we kind of already have two since there is another similar
README displayed at https://www.postgresql.org/ftp/. That being said, a
majority of those reading the README will likely be new developers accustomed
to Markdown (or doing so via interfaces such as Github) so going to Markdown
might not be a bad idea. We can also render a plain text version with pandoc
for release builds should we want to.
Sorry, my suggestion wasn't meant to imply that I have any strong concerns
about maintaining two README files. If we can automate generating one or
the other, that'd be great, but I don't see that as a prerequisite to
adding a Markdown version.
Agreed, and I didn't say we should do it but rather that we can do it based on
the toolchain we already have. Personally I think just having a Markdown
version is enough, it's become the de facto standard for such documentation for
good reasons.
+1
Markdown is pretty readable as text, I'm not sure why we need both.
--
Joe Conway
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
