On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 8:02 AM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 07:10:35AM -0700, David G. Johnston wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 6:52 AM Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > I'd maybe accept having it back-patched to v15 on that basis but not any > > further. > > > > But I agree that our general behavior is to only apply this scope of > update of > > the documentation to HEAD. > > If everyone agrees this new chapter is helpful, and as helpful to PG 11 > users as PG 16 users, why would we not give users this information in > our docs now? What is the downside? Chapter numbers? Translations? > Admittedly the policy is more about "we don't expend any effort to write back branch patches for this kind of material" rather than "we don't do back patching because it causes problems". But it is an existing policy, applied consistently through the years, and treating the documentation like a book, even though it is published in a non-physical medium, is a reasonable guideline to follow. My desire to get it out in an official release early goes against this policy, and I'm fine waiting for v16 on that basis. The only reason I'm good with updating v15 is that I basically consider anything in the first 3 point releases of a major version to be a "delta" release. One back-patchable idea to consider would be adding a note at the top of the page(s) highlighting the fact that said material has been superseded by more current documentation, with a link. But the idea of changing long-released (see my delta comment above) material doesn't sit well with me or the policy. > I assume this new chapter would be mentioned in the minor release notes. > > We don't do release notes for documentation changes. David J.
