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

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
>> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
>>> 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.  ;-)

I didn't really agree with what you took out before, and I am definitely
going to object to this latest set of diffs.  What it appears to me
you have done is a search-and-destroy on any paragraph mentioning "7.x",
without any consideration of whether that removes important information
from the overall presentation.  Those paras are generally comparing old
and new behavior, and even if you don't care specifically what the old
behavior was, they present useful explanation of the new behavior.

I also agree with the objection that there are still lots of people who
are going to be trying to port old apps to 9.0.
        regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
> >> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
> >>> 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.  ;-)
> 
> I didn't really agree with what you took out before, and I am definitely
> going to object to this latest set of diffs.  What it appears to me
> you have done is a search-and-destroy on any paragraph mentioning "7.x",
> without any consideration of whether that removes important information
> from the overall presentation.  Those paras are generally comparing old
> and new behavior, and even if you don't care specifically what the old
> behavior was, they present useful explanation of the new behavior.

Yea, let me try again and rephrase some of it to highlight the behavior
and not the version change.

> I also agree with the objection that there are still lots of people who
> are going to be trying to port old apps to 9.0.

Well, I stand by my statement that it is a judgement call on how much we
keep, and there is a cost to readers to keep it, but there isn't very
much of it.  Are the people who wanted more aggressive removal OK with
putting back the pre-7.4 documentation mentions?

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

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Well, I stand by my statement that it is a judgement call on how much we
> keep, and there is a cost to readers to keep it, but there isn't very
> much of it.  Are the people who wanted more aggressive removal OK with
> putting back the pre-7.4 documentation mentions?

Why are those that don't want it determining what those that do want it 
have access to?  Easier for those that don't want it to 'skip it' then it 
is for those that do to go searching in older releases for it ...

----
Marc G. Fournier                        Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A.
scrappy@hub.org                                     http://www.hub.org

Yahoo:yscrappy    Skype: hub.org    ICQ:7615664    MSN:scrappy@hub.org

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
>>>> <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc> wrote:
>>>>> 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.  ;-)
>> I didn't really agree with what you took out before, and I am definitely
>> going to object to this latest set of diffs.  What it appears to me
>> you have done is a search-and-destroy on any paragraph mentioning "7.x",
>> without any consideration of whether that removes important information
>> from the overall presentation.  Those paras are generally comparing old
>> and new behavior, and even if you don't care specifically what the old
>> behavior was, they present useful explanation of the new behavior.
> 
> Yea, let me try again and rephrase some of it to highlight the behavior
> and not the version change.

Well the behaviour changed with a given version which is crucial 
information for somebody doing a migration... It is also useful 
historical information for people reading the manual - it is not 
impossible that this could effect on the application design...

> 
>> I also agree with the objection that there are still lots of people who
>> are going to be trying to port old apps to 9.0.
> 
> Well, I stand by my statement that it is a judgement call on how much we
> keep, and there is a cost to readers to keep it, but there isn't very
> much of it.  Are the people who wanted more aggressive removal OK with
> putting back the pre-7.4 documentation mentions?


Who actually are those people? I don't recall anybody complaining that 
we have too much information in our docs (maybe that they wnat better 
search or a better structure).


Stefan

Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > Yea, let me try again and rephrase some of it to highlight the behavior
> > and not the version change.
> 
> Well the behaviour changed with a given version which is crucial 
> information for somebody doing a migration... It is also useful 
> historical information for people reading the manual - it is not 
> impossible that this could effect on the application design...
> 
> > 
> >> I also agree with the objection that there are still lots of people who
> >> are going to be trying to port old apps to 9.0.
> > 
> > Well, I stand by my statement that it is a judgement call on how much we
> > keep, and there is a cost to readers to keep it, but there isn't very
> > much of it.  Are the people who wanted more aggressive removal OK with
> > putting back the pre-7.4 documentation mentions?
> 
> 
> Who actually are those people? I don't recall anybody complaining that 
> we have too much information in our docs (maybe that they wnat better 
> search or a better structure).

Well, by that argument, should we have Postgres 6.3 information in our
documentation?  I doubt anyone would explicitly complain about it, but
it would serve very little useful purpose and make our documentation
harder to read.

I don't really care if we remove the old stuff or not --- removing it,
or at least reviewing possible removal stuff, is a standard practice for
every major relesae, so I did it.  If people want nothing removed, that
is fine with me.

In fact, I have heard enough complaints.  I am reversing my removals and
if someone else wants to do the job, go ahead.

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