Re: list of acknowledgments for PG16

> On 25 Aug 2023, at 14:22, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 4:03 PM Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> wrote:

>> I'm sure we could figure out how to just release the updated docs, but
>> with RC1 a week away, is it really worthwhile?
>
> We've also been pretty strict to say that we don't *want* unreleased
> docs on the website for any of our stable branches before, so changing
> that would be a distinct policy change as well. And doing such an
> exception for just one commit seems like it's set up for problems --
> you'd then have to do another one as soon as an adjustment is made.
> And in the end, that would mean changing the policy to say that the
> "release branches documentation tracks branch tip instead of
> releases". Which I generally speaking don't think is a good idea,
> because then they don't match what people are running anymore. I think
> it only really makes sense for this one part of the docs -- even other
> changes to the REL16 docs should be excluded until the next release is
> (this time, RC1).
>
> Bottom line is, definite -1 for doing a one-off change that violates
> the principle we're on.

Based on your reasoning above, I agree.

> Now, if we want a *separate* location where we continuously load
> branch tip docs that's a different thing and certainly something we
> could consider.

That could be useful, seeing changes rendered with the full website style is a
good way to ensure a doc patch didn't break something subtle.  As long as keep
them from being indexed by search engines and clearly separated from /docs/ it
should be fine.

--
Daniel Gustafsson