Hi,
On 2019-02-05 12:24:00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2019-02-05 12:10:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> For something like release-9-6-10.html, there's no value in having it
> >> appear in three or four different places. You can't even argue that
> >> the later branches might be more up-to-date: that text is *the same*,
> >> modulo toolchain-forced markup differences, in every branch; or at
> >> least if it isn't it means I screwed up.
>
> > If somebody proposed adding automatic redirects from the older linked
> > versions to the newest /current/ URL with that version's release notes,
> > I'm not sure I would have argued against that. But I do *not* think
> > it's actually accurate they are the same - it's a significant difference
> > that they're linking to the corresponding version's pages, because those
> > will contain that version's syntax / docs.
>
> Huh? The release note contents are identical cross-branch.
> I know, because I'm generally the one making them.
The point is that links in release-$version.html in /current/ or in a
magical new repo will likely contain references to other pages in the
docs. Even when the contents of the specific release-*.html page look
the same, the pages they link to will differ more. As I said, that's
not necessarily bad, but that did use to be a difference between the
pages depending on which version they are from.
Greetings,
Andres Freund