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.
Cheers,
Jeff
