Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Td4sN-0000Md-K5 for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:01:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Td4sM-0003CA-Og for pgsql-docs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:01:54 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([87.238.57.229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Td4sL-0003BX-PE for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:01:53 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Td4sJ-0001xA-Cn for pgsql-docs@postgresql.org; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:01:53 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Td4sI-0001ah-Bl; Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:01:50 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 15:01:50 -0500 From: Bruce Momjian To: Jeff Janes Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 8.4 doc bug for "Incrementally Updated Backups" Message-ID: <20121126200150.GD23214@momjian.us> References: <20121123234205.GA1605@momjian.us> <20121124013644.GA9382@momjian.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-docs Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-docs-owner@postgresql.org On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 01:56:27PM -0800, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Bruce Momjian 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 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. I checked just now and the unreliable advice does not appear in 8.4, so it possible that in 2010 I checked and found it only applied back to 9.0, or I might only have checked 9.0. I don't remember now, but based on the fact it was an incorrect recommendation, I probably would have backpatched it as far back as possible. Sorry I was unclear on this issue in previous emails. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs