Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
>>>> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
>>>>> per http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Release_Support_Policy 7.4 is
>>>>> still supported for a few months to come (and will be EOL'd together with
>>>>> 8.0). I'm also not really sure why we need to change stuff like that, this
>>>>> kind of information might still be useful for somebody trying to upgrade
>>>>> from an unsupported release to a supported one.
>>>> Yeah.
>>> Well, the documentation still exists in the old releases, even 8.4. The
>>> big question is how much back-version information we should keep in our
>>> docs, and does it make sense to keep paragraphs around that are only
>>> meaningful to < 1% of people reading it. Some people are saying keep
>>> more, some are saying keep less, so I am betting I have hit the proper
>>> balance. ;-)
>> I didn't really agree with what you took out before, and I am definitely
>> going to object to this latest set of diffs. What it appears to me
>> you have done is a search-and-destroy on any paragraph mentioning "7.x",
>> without any consideration of whether that removes important information
>> from the overall presentation. Those paras are generally comparing old
>> and new behavior, and even if you don't care specifically what the old
>> behavior was, they present useful explanation of the new behavior.
>
> Yea, let me try again and rephrase some of it to highlight the behavior
> and not the version change.
Well the behaviour changed with a given version which is crucial
information for somebody doing a migration... It is also useful
historical information for people reading the manual - it is not
impossible that this could effect on the application design...
>
>> I also agree with the objection that there are still lots of people who
>> are going to be trying to port old apps to 9.0.
>
> Well, I stand by my statement that it is a judgement call on how much we
> keep, and there is a cost to readers to keep it, but there isn't very
> much of it. Are the people who wanted more aggressive removal OK with
> putting back the pre-7.4 documentation mentions?
Who actually are those people? I don't recall anybody complaining that
we have too much information in our docs (maybe that they wnat better
search or a better structure).
Stefan