Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB7E9FB50B
	for <pgsql-www-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:41:26 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 46446-04 for <pgsql-www-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:41:23 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.171])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE259FB58E
	for <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:41:22 -0400 (AST)
Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id k3so226351ugf
	for <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:41:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=cM4OJmMllEZ5fXMomS2V9YxNEoaYwLJxHxPMYDv3eENl5ag0+fogNTknU6xif8blOkByC7olTVBERxQHDWFzUdtrm7odz1wrJifXE9TKP1ahRkHn3erF6ztlLIejEi6rmw4o71cicj+Wsap1WrnIeNdgshAJ5f1yQfMJJc1ttKo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta;
	h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=Q4jRBJBzyW3P/T+5LidZN6ER83LeYMUdX7U0DuLleNQnwwXoCkrj0vaDlAHGbBSdKVp/o4OXOC44YY1kqgsg2lHUPRLhQA61Jmlz1MxPRK4+JM70OkjuKdRVpC8BFgMnHlg+dVKlRTx4B1JKYRDq1diluOE6dNZOrP+ij56R27U=
Received: by 10.115.54.1 with SMTP id g1mr570677wak.1172187680533;
	Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:41:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.132.17 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:41:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5a0a9d6f0702221541x71705642if61ab67ef32d6cdb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:41:20 -0800
From: "Andrew Hammond" <andrew.george.hammond@gmail.com>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus@hagander.net>
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?
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org,
	"PostgreSQL www" <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <45DD8E15.2050006@hagander.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <20070221144716.GA21044@svr2.hagander.net>
	<200702211507.l1LF7Me12089@momjian.us>
	<5a0a9d6f0702211113v740f5014m6e1df594303196b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<45DD8E15.2050006@hagander.net>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200702/243
X-Sequence-Number: 11648

On 2/22/07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> 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".

Why aren't 7.3.18, 7.2.8, 7.1.6, etc there then?

Clearly there is some criteria for which branches are presented there.

> > 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.

I agree, however, it could start as a FAQ link and go from there as
time permits.

> > 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.

I am willing to take a shot at writing a first draft of this page if
there's interest in having it.

Andrew