In-Reply-To: <1131313608.6884.86.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE92E826@algol.sollentuna.se>
	<1131313608.6884.86.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <5407F6D0-63F5-43D4-80B8-74C29C28B66B@myrealbox.com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <mha@sollentuna.net>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>,
	PostgreSQL WWW Mailing List <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com>
Subject: Re: On-line docs for PG 8.1 need updating
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:03:48 +0900
To: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>


On Nov 7, 2005, at 6:46 , Neil Conway wrote:

> On Sun, 2005-06-11 at 22:37 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> That's intentional, it's scheduled to go up along with the press  
>> release
>> and related info once the release is done.
>
> What is the reasoning for this? IMHO for future releases it would be a
> better idea to make the beta documentation a part of the main  
> website's
> list of documentation at about the same time the first beta is  
> released.
> That would make the documentation easier to find and would also
> encourage more people to use the beta.

I agree with your points. One reservation I have is that people might  
be more likely to run a beta in a production environment. Nowadays it  
seems increasingly common for projects to release betas for  
widespread circulation. I don't know if this is something that should  
be encouraged for PostgreSQL. I'd hate to see people get a bad  
impression of PostgreSQL because a beta screws up their data. Putting  
it on the top page might lend it more credibility and lead people to  
trust it in environments they shouldn't--even though PostgreSQL  
hackers are very clear that beta should not be used in production.

I'd guess these things are better discussed on -advocacy.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com