Обсуждение: Re: [DOCS] 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?
Andrew Hammond wrote: > 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. Agreed. > 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") I think not. The meaning is "latest releases available for each branch", not "these are the actively maintained branches". > 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. I'm bouncing this over to -www as well to hear what people think about that part. If we do that, I'd definitely like to see a proper page and not just a FAQ link. > 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. I fully agree that we need some kind of page that explains "versioning policy" or something like that. Like how 8.1 is in principle an "equally major" release as 8.0. //Magnus
>> > 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")
>>
>> I think not. The meaning is "latest releases available for each branch",
>> not "these are the actively maintained branches".
>
> Why aren't 7.3.18, 7.2.8, 7.1.6, etc there then?
>
> Clearly there is some criteria for which branches are presented there.
<7.3 is EOL. We still back patch what we can but they are considered
deprecated.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
On 2/22/07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > Andrew Hammond wrote: > > 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. > > Agreed. > > > > 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") > > I think not. The meaning is "latest releases available for each branch", > not "these are the actively maintained branches". Why aren't 7.3.18, 7.2.8, 7.1.6, etc there then? Clearly there is some criteria for which branches are presented there. > > 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. > > I'm bouncing this over to -www as well to hear what people think about > that part. If we do that, I'd definitely like to see a proper page and > not just a FAQ link. I agree, however, it could start as a FAQ link and go from there as time permits. > > 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. > > I fully agree that we need some kind of page that explains "versioning > policy" or something like that. Like how 8.1 is in principle an "equally > major" release as 8.0. I am willing to take a shot at writing a first draft of this page if there's interest in having it. Andrew
On 2/22/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > >> > 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") > >> > >> I think not. The meaning is "latest releases available for each branch", > >> not "these are the actively maintained branches". > > > > Why aren't 7.3.18, 7.2.8, 7.1.6, etc there then? > > > > Clearly there is some criteria for which branches are presented there. > > <7.3 is EOL. We still back patch what we can but they are considered > deprecated. Yeah, I figured that was the criteria. So, is it not reasonable to say that the releases listed on the front page under "Latest Releases" are actually "Current minor release for branches which have not reached EoL"? Perhaps instead of "Latest Releases" or "Actively Maintained Releases" something like "Current Releases" says that better? Andrew
Andrew Hammond wrote: > On 2/22/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > >> >> > 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") >> >> >> >> I think not. The meaning is "latest releases available for each >> branch", >> >> not "these are the actively maintained branches". >> > >> > Why aren't 7.3.18, 7.2.8, 7.1.6, etc there then? >> > >> > Clearly there is some criteria for which branches are presented there. >> >> <7.3 is EOL. We still back patch what we can but they are considered >> deprecated. > > Yeah, I figured that was the criteria. So, is it not reasonable to say > that the releases listed on the front page under "Latest Releases" are > actually "Current minor release for branches which have not reached > EoL"? Perhaps instead of "Latest Releases" or "Actively Maintained > Releases" something like "Current Releases" says that better? "Current Releases" I'm fine with - that seems to get the point across a bit better than what we have today, I think. If people agree, we'll just go bug Tom (or was it Toms wife?) about generating a new image for us to put there. //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > I'm bouncing this over to -www as well to hear what people think about > that part. If we do that, I'd definitely like to see a proper page and > not just a FAQ link. Agreed, though there's no reason not to have both. Including it on the main site will add an air of legitimacy to satisfy PHBs. Regards Dave
Dave Page wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> I'm bouncing this over to -www as well to hear what people think about >> that part. If we do that, I'd definitely like to see a proper page and >> not just a FAQ link. > > Agreed, though there's no reason not to have both. Including it on the > main site will add an air of legitimacy to satisfy PHBs. I've added such a page to the site now, and linked it in from the support section and from the front page. The text is more or less copied directly from the FAQ. Updates to the text are always welcome ;-) I suggest that we remove it from the FAQ, or replace it with a reference to the website, once the site has updated. //Magnus
On 3/12/07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > > Magnus Hagander wrote: > >> I'm bouncing this over to -www as well to hear what people think about > >> that part. If we do that, I'd definitely like to see a proper page and > >> not just a FAQ link. > > > > Agreed, though there's no reason not to have both. Including it on the > > main site will add an air of legitimacy to satisfy PHBs. > > I've added such a page to the site now, and linked it in from the > support section and from the front page. The text is more or less copied > directly from the FAQ. Updates to the text are always welcome ;-) url please? Andrew
On Monday 12 March 2007 17:27, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> I'm bouncing this over to -www as well to hear what people think about
> >> that part. If we do that, I'd definitely like to see a proper page and
> >> not just a FAQ link.
> >
> > Agreed, though there's no reason not to have both. Including it on the
> > main site will add an air of legitimacy to satisfy PHBs.
>
> I've added such a page to the site now, and linked it in from the
> support section and from the front page. The text is more or less copied
> directly from the FAQ. Updates to the text are always welcome ;-)
>
> I suggest that we remove it from the FAQ, or replace it with a reference
> to the website, once the site has updated.
>
I'd suggest we add this into the documentation where it belongs :-)
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 04:58:34PM -0700, Andrew Hammond wrote: > On 3/12/07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > >Dave Page wrote: > >> Magnus Hagander wrote: > >>> I'm bouncing this over to -www as well to hear what people think about > >>> that part. If we do that, I'd definitely like to see a proper page and > >>> not just a FAQ link. > >> > >> Agreed, though there's no reason not to have both. Including it on the > >> main site will add an air of legitimacy to satisfy PHBs. > > > >I've added such a page to the site now, and linked it in from the > >support section and from the front page. The text is more or less copied > >directly from the FAQ. Updates to the text are always welcome ;-) > > url please? http://www.postgresql.org //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> I'm bouncing this over to -www as well to hear what people think about
> >> that part. If we do that, I'd definitely like to see a proper page and
> >> not just a FAQ link.
> >
> > Agreed, though there's no reason not to have both. Including it on the
> > main site will add an air of legitimacy to satisfy PHBs.
>
> I've added such a page to the site now, and linked it in from the
> support section and from the front page. The text is more or less copied
> directly from the FAQ. Updates to the text are always welcome ;-)
>
> I suggest that we remove it from the FAQ, or replace it with a reference
> to the website, once the site has updated.
OK, FAQ text removed, and URL added:
http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +