To: Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com>
cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>,
	PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [DOCS] the sad state of our FAQs 
In-reply-to: <37ed240d0903071418u541851f8pac6cb16fe48e859d@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <49B27F0E.2050504@kaltenbrunner.cc>
	<20090307195305.GB3821@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<18162.1236463457@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<37ed240d0903071418u541851f8pac6cb16fe48e859d@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com>
	message dated "Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:18:46 +1100"
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:33:13 -0500
Message-ID: <18473.1236465193@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

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).

> Perhaps, instead of back-branch FAQs which are bound to be mostly an
> old copy of the One FAQ, we could have some kind of "Things to Note If
> You're Running an Older Version" article.

In the past, Bruce has not hesitated to rip out or replace FAQ entries
as soon as they became obsolete.  That approach would have to change if
we went to a one-true-FAQ approach.  In particular, it's often the case
that the best way to do something depends on which version you're
running.

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.

I guess the sticking point would be about how long to preserve FAQ
entries that are no longer relevant to the current release.

			regards, tom lane