Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29756334F9;
	Sat,  7 Mar 2009 18:52:35 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 06854-08; Sat,  7 Mar 2009 18:52:34 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com
 [209.85.198.224])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E25633494;
	Sat,  7 Mar 2009 18:52:33 -0400 (AST)
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id f6so1120893rvb.43
	for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:52:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:references:message-id:from:to
	:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer
	:mime-version:subject:date:cc;
	bh=yMeUoJtQLON5TPteXhhpJIR31JEQw5uTEX85ZnYEab0=;
	b=CdEhwnaNqH3yfuDN2yS9y4BVZT/tCqRbmHQ1YgKeCAmmUQqjCRE2I1Q/vueUh48a3Q
	EgdLDQniOy48hVPAIK+/EJMnoCYQGJSrGzkCX3UzUWyfpSWRZCqxNe+0AlDh9WJ/1Gqq
	t2kGhiioQFMYKLcF0GVaUB6R/t3cr9lvMBVSs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=references:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:cc;
	b=P5OZaN5DGo61q5enw5mxclivMjv5Ux0phN0F+/Yes6CNcfnvHVD0NADC21I/gzD20b
	05aZGBSMVb2iCbqqqu8qUxDfzJGFJVYi8Cn7nVw2xl3LABlhdTsTO98nsCH+OfEhsXaZ
	fXtxu5kNlWlwAI0y47TqEbGbnQYZ1jrjqRFZg=
Received: by 10.140.140.3 with SMTP id n3mr2128713rvd.111.1236466352524;
	Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:52:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?10.91.103.241? ([32.157.183.171])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g31sm8541065rvb.7.2009.03.07.14.52.31
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
	Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:52:31 -0800 (PST)
References: <49B27F0E.2050504@kaltenbrunner.cc>
	<20090307195305.GB3821@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<18162.1236463457@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<37ed240d0903071418u541851f8pac6cb16fe48e859d@mail.gmail.com>
	<18473.1236465193@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Message-Id: <0C6B09FB-86B0-42F4-BAA9-4E9797B66150@gmail.com>
From: Selena Deckelmann <selenamarie@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <18473.1236465193@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (5G77)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 5G77)
Subject: Re: [DOCS] the sad state of our FAQs
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:52:19 -0800
Cc: Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>,
	PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200903/33
X-Sequence-Number: 16687

On Mar 7, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
>> Although to be frank I think the value of per-version FAQs is  
>> dubious.
>> I would be totally okay with seeing the back-branch FAQs abandoned in
>> favour of the One FAQ (to rule them all, etc).
>
> I think it might well be true though that it'd be better to have one  
> FAQ
> with answers that say something like "Before version x.y, do this ...
> in x.y and later, do that ...".  That approach makes sure that people
> know that they are reading version-specific advice; whereas the  
> separate
> FAQs approach makes it pretty easy for people to fail to notice that
> they are reading advice that's inappropriate for their version.

Another approach would be to tag each FAQ with what version it was  
created for and what version it is deprecated for. (pretty much what  
Brenden suggested, but slightly less overhead than listing all  
versions the FAQ applies to)

Then we could do cool things like generate the version specific FAQs  
programmatically and not ever worry about removing them.

-Selena