Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > 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).
Well, by that argument, should we have Postgres 6.3 information in our
documentation? I doubt anyone would explicitly complain about it, but
it would serve very little useful purpose and make our documentation
harder to read.
I don't really care if we remove the old stuff or not --- removing it,
or at least reviewing possible removal stuff, is a standard practice for
every major relesae, so I did it. If people want nothing removed, that
is fine with me.
In fact, I have heard enough complaints. I am reversing my removals and
if someone else wants to do the job, go ahead.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.comPG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do + If your life is a hard
drive,Christ can be your backup. +