Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1B99FBEE4;
	Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:43:32 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 75116-05; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:43:22 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from svr2.hagander.net (svr2.hagander.net [88.198.128.226])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E100E9FBCE6;
	Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:43:21 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [10.0.4.46] (nblzone-225-6.nblnetworks.fi [83.145.225.6])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by svr2.hagander.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E1FDCC2CA;
	Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:43:20 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <45DD8E15.2050006@hagander.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:35:33 +0100
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Hammond <andrew.george.hammond@gmail.com>
CC: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>,  pgsql-docs@postgresql.org,
	PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [DOCS] should we have a separate page that clearly defines what
	a minor release is and why it's a good idea to keep up with them?
References: <20070221144716.GA21044@svr2.hagander.net>	
	<200702211507.l1LF7Me12089@momjian.us>
	<5a0a9d6f0702211113v740f5014m6e1df594303196b2@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5a0a9d6f0702211113v740f5014m6e1df594303196b2@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.2.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=BAYES_50
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200702/241
X-Sequence-Number: 11646

Andrew Hammond wrote:
> On 2/21/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> 
>> OK, the FAQ now has:
>>
>>     <P>The PostgreSQL team makes only bug fixes in minor releases,
>>     so, for example, upgrading from 7.4.8 to 7.4.9 does not require
>>     a dump and restore;  merely stop the database server, install
>>     the updated binaries, and restart the server.</P>
>>
>>     <P>All users should upgrade to the most recent minor release as soon
>>     as it is available.  While upgrades always have some risk, PostgreSQL
>>     minor releases fix only common bugs to reduce the risk of upgrading.
>>     The community considers <i>not</i> upgrading more risky that
>>     upgrading.</P>
>>
>> What should change about this text?
> 
> That it's in the FAQ? I think this is one of the most common
> misunderstandings for people outside the community, so I think we need
> to find a better way to communicate about it.

Agreed.


> On the front page, we already have "Latest Releases" with links to the
> most recent release for each version still actively maintained and
> release notes.  (Would it make sense to change that title from "Latest
> Releases" to "Actively Maintained Releases")

I think not. The meaning is "latest releases available for each branch",
not "these are the actively maintained branches".


> What I'd like to see right under it is something like "Minimize your
> risk by keeping up with minor revisions." Which would link to a page
> (perhaps that section of the FAQ) that says something like the
> following.

I'm bouncing this over to -www as well to hear what people think about
that part. If we do that, I'd definitely like to see a proper page and
not just a FAQ link.

> There was a posting a while ago about projected lifespans of major
> releases that got side-tracked into a discussion about dropping
> windows builds for 8.0 and 8.1. I think this is related, but I haven't
> figured out how we can express these ideas.

I fully agree that we need some kind of page that explains "versioning
policy" or something like that. Like how 8.1 is in principle an "equally
major" release as 8.0.

//Magnus