On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 04:26:48PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > We don't assume people are reading docs from very old versions.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Even if that is the version they are using? It is, after all, still
>>> under maintenance,
>>
>> There are three options for doc patches:
>>
>> 1. patch only git head, meaning the next major release
>> 2. do #1, plus the most recent major released version, e.g. 9.2.X
>> 3. #1, #2, and all major supported released versions
>>
>> In general, #1 is normally for wording clarifications, #2 is for usage
>> clarifications, and #3 is to correct mistakes. Not sure I follow that
>> 100%, but that is what I normally do.
>>
>> Is that process good? Did I not follow it?
>
> It was removed from 9.0 because it was considered to be unreliable. I
> think that unreliable advice about taking backups is a mistake, so it
> should have followed path #3. I guess it is also clarification, but a
> pretty major one.
I think it can be considered a bugfix, and thus correcting a mistake.
But in generael, I think we may want to be a bit more aggressive in
backpatching these things. First because people will likely read the
docs for the version that they are using, and thus miss things. But
possibly even more important, because we know that Google (and others)
tend to link to older versions of the docs as search hits before the
newer ones for quite a long time after a release (or forever in some
cases), which makes it even more visible.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/