Message-ID: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-4075-c4520270003@github.com>
From: "vlsi (@vlsi)" <noreply+vlsi@github.com>
To: "pgjdbc/pgjdbc" <noreply+pgjdbc-pgjdbc@github.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 15:55:42 +0000
Subject: Re: [pgjdbc/pgjdbc] PR #4075: docs: restructure site, compatibility page, changelog-driven releases
In-Reply-To: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-4075@github.com>
References: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-4075@github.com>
List-Id: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc.github.com>
X-GitHub-Author-Login: vlsi
X-GitHub-Comment-Id: 4520270003
X-GitHub-Comment-Type: issue_comment
X-GitHub-Issue: 4075
X-GitHub-Repo: pgjdbc/pgjdbc
X-GitHub-Type: comment
X-GitHub-Url: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/4075#issuecomment-4520270003
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Before I split this PR into separate "structure" and "per-page content" pieces, a practical proposal: what if I revert all prose verbatim to the version on main, in this same PR, while keeping the new page layout, navigation, styles, search, and release pipeline? The PR would then contain zero prose changes against main, matching the "no content changes" criterion you mentioned.

One thing to flag: where the new layout splits an oversized page into several, the prose would still come verbatim from the old page, sliced at existing heading boundaries with no editorial changes. New pages that have no equivalent on main (compatibility, troubleshooting) would be removed from this PR and re-added later in per-page PRs.

Would that be easier to review than starting from a fresh PR?