On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 01:56:27PM -0800, Jeff Janes 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 checked just now and the unreliable advice does not appear in 8.4, so
it possible that in 2010 I checked and found it only applied back to
9.0, or I might only have checked 9.0. I don't remember now, but based
on the fact it was an incorrect recommendation, I probably would have
backpatched it as far back as possible. Sorry I was unclear on this
issue in previous emails.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
