On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 11:51 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > But taking a step back, who is the actual audience for this? Do we > > *need* a link pointing directly there, or is it enough to just point > > to "use the docs on the web"? We can't link to the incorrect version, > > but can we just link to /docs/ and leave it at that? > > Well, it's people compiling from source, so I guess we can assume some > amount of cluefulness? I think perhaps it'd be okay to say "go here > and then navigate to the proper sub-page for your version". > > > If not, could we make the change of URL a part of the branching step? > > Branch to a stable release would the include modifying README, and be > > mad ea step of version_stamp.pl? > > Doesn't really help people working from git, I think, because the > master branch is always going to claim to be "devel" even when you > rewind it to some old state. Maybe we can assume people doing > such a thing have even more clue ... but on the whole I'd rather > not add the additional complication.
Well it could per major version couldn't it? When we start working on v16, we stamp master as that, and we could use that for the links. It will work "for the past", but if will of course not be able to track how the docs changes between the individual commits -- since our website only has the latest release for each one. If we need that it needs to be in the source tree -- but is that actually a requirement? -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
