Thread: pgsql: Remove pre-7.4 documentaiton mentions, now that 8.0 is the oldest

Log Message:
-----------
Remove pre-7.4 documentaiton mentions, now that 8.0 is the oldest
supported release.

Modified Files:
--------------
    pgsql/doc/src/sgml:
        datatype.sgml (r1.242 -> r1.243)
        (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/datatype.sgml?r1=1.242&r2=1.243)
        ddl.sgml (r1.88 -> r1.89)
        (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/ddl.sgml?r1=1.88&r2=1.89)
        libpq.sgml (r1.300 -> r1.301)
        (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/libpq.sgml?r1=1.300&r2=1.301)
        protocol.sgml (r1.83 -> r1.84)
        (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/protocol.sgml?r1=1.83&r2=1.84)
        rules.sgml (r1.53 -> r1.54)
        (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/rules.sgml?r1=1.53&r2=1.54)
        xindex.sgml (r1.64 -> r1.65)
        (http://anoncvs.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/xindex.sgml?r1=1.64&r2=1.65)

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Log Message:
> -----------
> Remove pre-7.4 documentaiton mentions, now that 8.0 is the oldest
> supported release.

per http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Release_Support_Policy
7.4 is still supported for a few months to come (and will be EOL'd
together with 8.0). I'm also not really sure why we need to change stuff
like that, this kind of information might still be useful for somebody
trying to upgrade from an unsupported release to a supported one.



Stefan

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
<stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> Log Message:
>> -----------
>> Remove pre-7.4 documentaiton mentions, now that 8.0 is the oldest
>> supported release.
>
> per http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Release_Support_Policy 7.4 is
> still supported for a few months to come (and will be EOL'd together with
> 8.0). I'm also not really sure why we need to change stuff like that, this
> kind of information might still be useful for somebody trying to upgrade
> from an unsupported release to a supported one.

Yeah.

...Robert

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>
> >> Log Message:
> >> -----------
> >> Remove pre-7.4 documentaiton mentions, now that 8.0 is the oldest
> >> supported release.
> >
> > per http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Release_Support_Policy 7.4 is
> > still supported for a few months to come (and will be EOL'd together with
> > 8.0). I'm also not really sure why we need to change stuff like that, this
> > kind of information might still be useful for somebody trying to upgrade
> > from an unsupported release to a supported one.
>
> Yeah.

Well, the documentation still exists in the old releases, even 8.4.  The
big question is how much back-version information we should keep in our
docs, and does it make sense to keep paragraphs around that are only
meaningful to < 1% of people reading it.  Some people are saying keep
more, some are saying keep less, so I am betting I have hit the proper
balance.  ;-)

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com
  PG East:  http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do
  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
>> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>> Log Message:
>>>> -----------
>>>> Remove pre-7.4 documentaiton mentions, now that 8.0 is the oldest
>>>> supported release.
>>> per http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Release_Support_Policy 7.4 is
>>> still supported for a few months to come (and will be EOL'd together with
>>> 8.0). I'm also not really sure why we need to change stuff like that, this
>>> kind of information might still be useful for somebody trying to upgrade
>>> from an unsupported release to a supported one.
>> Yeah.
>
> Well, the documentation still exists in the old releases, even 8.4.  The
> big question is how much back-version information we should keep in our
> docs, and does it make sense to keep paragraphs around that are only
> meaningful to < 1% of people reading it.  Some people are saying keep
> more, some are saying keep less, so I am betting I have hit the proper
> balance.  ;-)

Well even if it is useful information for only 1% of our readers (which
given the access stats on the html logs is a HUGE number) and we don't
have any real maintenance overhead with keeping it (which I kinda doubt
we have).

And just from looking at some of the hunks in more detail I think we are
actually removing fairly reasonable information (especially if we are
talking stuff like behaviour changes) :/


Stefan

Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
> >> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
> >>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>>> Log Message:
> >>>> -----------
> >>>> Remove pre-7.4 documentaiton mentions, now that 8.0 is the oldest
> >>>> supported release.
> >>> per http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_Release_Support_Policy 7.4 is
> >>> still supported for a few months to come (and will be EOL'd together with
> >>> 8.0). I'm also not really sure why we need to change stuff like that, this
> >>> kind of information might still be useful for somebody trying to upgrade
> >>> from an unsupported release to a supported one.
> >> Yeah.
> >
> > Well, the documentation still exists in the old releases, even 8.4.  The
> > big question is how much back-version information we should keep in our
> > docs, and does it make sense to keep paragraphs around that are only
> > meaningful to < 1% of people reading it.  Some people are saying keep
> > more, some are saying keep less, so I am betting I have hit the proper
> > balance.  ;-)
>
> Well even if it is useful information for only 1% of our readers (which
> given the access stats on the html logs is a HUGE number) and we don't
> have any real maintenance overhead with keeping it (which I kinda doubt
> we have).
>
> And just from looking at some of the hunks in more detail I think we are
> actually removing fairly reasonable information (especially if we are
> talking stuff like behaviour changes) :/

The issue isn't the cost of us maintaining the SGML, it is the cost of
individuals reading it, deciding if it applies to them, and then
skipping to the next paragraph or section.  If we had all this stuff in
one isolated place, we would not have that issue and we could leave it
there forever, but then few people would find it when they needed it.

Also, this stuff is all in the release notes too, which is what people
should be reading for ugprades anyway.  The question is what should be
in the general documentation that everyone reads.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com
  PG East:  http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do
  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> The issue isn't the cost of us maintaining the SGML, it is the cost of
> individuals reading it, deciding if it applies to them, and then
> skipping to the next paragraph or section.  If we had all this stuff in
> one isolated place, we would not have that issue and we could leave it
> there forever, but then few people would find it when they needed it.

That's a pretty lame argument when you are talking about removing
a few paragraphs out of 7.5MB (and counting) of documentation.
The incremental savings for readers who don't care is negligible.  The
incremental cost for readers who needed the info could be very high.

            regards, tom lane