On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:29:07PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > On 12/14/2016 08:06 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 09:46:44AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > >>>> My own take on it is that the release notes are already a massive > > >>>> amount of work, and putting duplicative material in a bunch of other > > >>>> places isn't going to make things better, it'll just increase the > > >>>> maintenance burden. > > >>> > > >>> This would mean adding literally pages of material to the release > notes. > > >>> In the past, folks have been very negative on anything which would > make > > >>> the release notes longer. Are you sure? > > >> > > >> As that's a per-version information, that seems adapted to me. There > > >> could be as well in the release notes a link to the portion of the > > >> docs holding this manual. Definitely this should be self-contained in > > >> the docs, and not mention the wiki. My 2c. > > > > > > Yes, that is the usual approach. > > > > > > > So where in the docs should these go, then? We don't (currently) have a > > place for this kind of doc. Appendices? > > You are saying this is more massive than any other change we have made > in the past? In general, what need to be documented? > > I don't necessarily think it's because it's more massive than any chance we have made before. I think it's more that this is something that we probably should've had before, and just didn't. Right now we basically have a bulletpoint list of things that are new, with a section about things that are incompatible. Having an actual section with more detailed descriptions of how to handle these changes would definitely be a win. it shouldn't *just* be for these changes of course, it should be for any other changes that are large enough to benefit from more than a oneliner about the fact that they've changed. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
