Re: [DOCS] should we have a separate page that clearly defines what a minor release is and why it's a good idea to keep up with them?

On 2/22/07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> Andrew Hammond wrote:
> > On 2/21/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >
> >> OK, the FAQ now has:
> >>
> >>     <P>The PostgreSQL team makes only bug fixes in minor releases,
> >>     so, for example, upgrading from 7.4.8 to 7.4.9 does not require
> >>     a dump and restore;  merely stop the database server, install
> >>     the updated binaries, and restart the server.</P>
> >>
> >>     <P>All users should upgrade to the most recent minor release as soon
> >>     as it is available.  While upgrades always have some risk, PostgreSQL
> >>     minor releases fix only common bugs to reduce the risk of upgrading.
> >>     The community considers <i>not</i> upgrading more risky that
> >>     upgrading.</P>
> >>
> >> What should change about this text?
> >
> > That it's in the FAQ? I think this is one of the most common
> > misunderstandings for people outside the community, so I think we need
> > to find a better way to communicate about it.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> > On the front page, we already have "Latest Releases" with links to the
> > most recent release for each version still actively maintained and
> > release notes.  (Would it make sense to change that title from "Latest
> > Releases" to "Actively Maintained Releases")
>
> I think not. The meaning is "latest releases available for each branch",
> not "these are the actively maintained branches".

Why aren't 7.3.18, 7.2.8, 7.1.6, etc there then?

Clearly there is some criteria for which branches are presented there.

> > What I'd like to see right under it is something like "Minimize your
> > risk by keeping up with minor revisions." Which would link to a page
> > (perhaps that section of the FAQ) that says something like the
> > following.
>
> I'm bouncing this over to -www as well to hear what people think about
> that part. If we do that, I'd definitely like to see a proper page and
> not just a FAQ link.

I agree, however, it could start as a FAQ link and go from there as
time permits.

> > There was a posting a while ago about projected lifespans of major
> > releases that got side-tracked into a discussion about dropping
> > windows builds for 8.0 and 8.1. I think this is related, but I haven't
> > figured out how we can express these ideas.
>
> I fully agree that we need some kind of page that explains "versioning
> policy" or something like that. Like how 8.1 is in principle an "equally
> major" release as 8.0.

I am willing to take a shot at writing a first draft of this page if
there's interest in having it.

Andrew