On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@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 <br...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
