On 2/22/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew Hammond wrote:
> On 2/21/07, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> OK, the FAQ now has:
>>
>> <P>The PostgreSQL team makes only bug fixes in minor releases,
>> so, for example, upgrading from 7.4.8 to 7.4.9 does not require
>> a dump and restore; merely stop the database server, install
>> the updated binaries, and restart the server.</P>
>>
>> <P>All users should upgrade to the most recent minor release as soon
>> as it is available. While upgrades always have some risk, PostgreSQL
>> minor releases fix only common bugs to reduce the risk of upgrading.
>> The community considers <i>not</i> upgrading more risky that
>> upgrading.</P>
>>
>> What should change about this text?
>
> That it's in the FAQ? I think this is one of the most common
> misunderstandings for people outside the community, so I think we need
> to find a better way to communicate about it.
Agreed.
> On the front page, we already have "Latest Releases" with links to the
> most recent release for each version still actively maintained and
> release notes. (Would it make sense to change that title from "Latest
> Releases" to "Actively Maintained Releases")
I think not. The meaning is "latest releases available for each branch",
not "these are the actively maintained branches".
Why aren't 7.3.18, 7.2.8, 7.1.6, etc there then?
Clearly there is some criteria for which branches are presented there.
> What I'd like to see right under it is something like "Minimize your
> risk by keeping up with minor revisions." Which would link to a page
> (perhaps that section of the FAQ) that says something like the
> following.
I'm bouncing this over to -www as well to hear what people think about
that part. If we do that, I'd definitely like to see a proper page and
not just a FAQ link.
I agree, however, it could start as a FAQ link and go from there as
time permits.
> There was a posting a while ago about projected lifespans of major
> releases that got side-tracked into a discussion about dropping
> windows builds for 8.0 and 8.1. I think this is related, but I haven't
> figured out how we can express these ideas.
I fully agree that we need some kind of page that explains "versioning
policy" or something like that. Like how 8.1 is in principle an "equally
major" release as 8.0.
I am willing to take a shot at writing a first draft of this page if
there's interest in having it.
Andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
