Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98395632FA2;
	Sat,  7 Mar 2009 18:18:52 -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 68328-10; Sat,  7 Mar 2009 18:18:50 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com (ti-out-0910.google.com
 [209.85.142.189])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A5DE6322E4;
	Sat,  7 Mar 2009 18:18:49 -0400 (AST)
Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a21so665734tia.5
	for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:18:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
	:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=znfrMue4E5Lryy1CB25xn5Ia7HD66lrf5G2GiJ4YVys=;
	b=wcrS1l9o5/JXSvZDkip2Ufn9WLufsg1H+ZHj5/W3hKHtt76rVRCHq4Ji7OiWuMh0VT
	kk4i+9Lzf/+ZwAp/M9E3ZFoUKRq4e+7LSXQ21UdG0ph4Ovm9fNdDKVAwpiLwgre6+NnP
	3Y2HC3GND2iBl/JnoPHMsMiA8RCXjuUuVbNlY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=dG/hs0kwd2jq4O1FjQtaxfZaj3dF6aIiN4HyVZctW/XSsoQ7ev1V/KYSCGcsfp9PnN
	GUIBbNQx1Cpmw7izt+xzYkUImP0XsLQMymHZMtY6OwCLlkFP4iKWYUWDl5bwiktQyKDA
	3yGZIfgtYqm5DhG00AsZ2y9om1ex5BbHdSAfU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.110.37.3 with SMTP id k3mr2663093tik.16.1236464326997;
 Sat, 07
	Mar 2009 14:18:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <18162.1236463457@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <49B27F0E.2050504@kaltenbrunner.cc>
	<20090307195305.GB3821@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<18162.1236463457@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:18:46 +1100
Message-ID: <37ed240d0903071418u541851f8pac6cb16fe48e859d@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DOCS] the sad state of our FAQs
From: Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>,
	PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: 200903/31
X-Sequence-Number: 16685

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> The one good thing that having the FAQs in CVS does for us is make it
> fairly easy to have version-specific FAQs. =A0I don't think we've really
> exploited that capability, except in the indirect sense that we simply
> stopped updating back branches' FAQs (which hardly seems ideal). =A0So
> losing it doesn't seem like a showstopper objection to me. =A0Still, it's
> something that might be nice to preserve if we can.
>

There's nothing stopping us from maintaining per-version FAQs in a
wiki environment.  We just put up a page for "FAQ 7.4", "FAQ 8.0" and
so on, with "FAQ" always redirecting to the page for the latest stable
release.

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.

Cheers,
BJ