Re: 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 2/21/07, 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.

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")

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.

- "The PostgreSQL community provides minor releases on an as-needed
basis to address bugs. While all upgrades involve change which carries
risk, minor releases have the minimum amount of change necessary to
address bugs that are serious but generally obscure (here we could
link to an actual description of what does or does not go into a minor
release, if we have such a thing). The community considers the risk of
minor version upgrades to be less than the risk of remaining exposed
to these bugs. When planning your maintenance strategy, please be sure
to keep abreast of minor releases.

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.

Andrew