Kris Jurka wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Till Toenges wrote:
>
>> I added a new section "Download Current Version" below the "About"
>> section. The idea behind this is that most people will be interested
>> only in one or two versions. In the dummy only one link to the current
>> JDBC 3 version is included, the download statistics should show which
>> other versions are popular enough to be included here.
>
> I think this is a good idea, but I would include a link to JDBC4 as well
> because despite our poor support it is the way of the future.
It'd be nice to have just a single version in the "Current version"
section. Could we have just the JDBC4 version there? Does it work with
older JDKs? Would be nice to have a bit more details on which JDK
versions each jar works with.
>> This is also a convenient place to link to the extras page, with a
>> short description of what else is available. This way, the extras will
>> be more prominently displayed, and more people will find them.
>
> I hoping we fold in the copy stuff so that disappears and until we have
> some actual documentation/experience with the statement caching version,
> I'm not sure how prominently I would like to promote it.
Agreed, let's rather try to get the copy stuff merged.
>> The table at the end is the same as before. Could be split up in
>> "Development Versions", "Archived Versions" and "Source Downloads"
>> tables if it gets too crowded, but it's ok for now.
>
> Yeah, since we don't even maintain 7.X anymore, mentioning 6.X and 0.2
> is a little pointless.
Splitting maintained and no longer maintained versions into separate
tables is a good idea. As it is, there's no mention that the older
versions are not maintained.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com