Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D11B2634865;
	Sat,  7 Mar 2009 20:31:03 -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 95674-01-10; Sat,  7 Mar 2009 20:30:59 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from cronos.madness.at (madness.at [217.196.146.217])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E466348C8;
	Sat,  7 Mar 2009 20:30:18 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mastermind.kaltenbrunner.cc ([83.215.233.60])
	by cronos.madness.at with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>)
	id 1Lg6u9-000890-1N; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:30:11 +0100
Message-ID: <49B3118E.8060508@kaltenbrunner.cc>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:30:06 +0100
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090103)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Selena Deckelmann <selenamarie@gmail.com>
CC: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [DOCS] the sad state of our FAQs
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>
	<0C6B09FB-86B0-42F4-BAA9-4E9797B66150@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0C6B09FB-86B0-42F4-BAA9-4E9797B66150@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: 200903/35
X-Sequence-Number: 16689

Selena Deckelmann wrote:
> 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.

Yeah so some simple tags/icons like "8.1+, 7.4 only, 8.0 and older" on a 
per entry base? We also could use something like an "outdated" template 
for flagging specific entries or complete FAQ/wiki pages.
I don't really think that the per version FAQ is really a reality - we 
only have one version on the main website (which is actually -HEAD I 
think which makes it even more weird) and I really doubt that a lot of 
people are reading them elsewhere.


Stefan