Hi, On 2019-02-05 12:10:57 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2019-02-05 08:50:16 -0500, Jonathan S. Katz wrote: > >> The original thought process was to _not_ do that given the effort, but > >> if it's just for `/current/` it may not be so bad. > > > I think it definitely should also be on /devel/, that's what's out there > > on blog posts and such. I am flummoxed that we're just giving up google > > juice by willy nilly returning 404 for stuff that's more widely linked > > than the average page. It's not like we are that good placed in searches > > (although that's primarily related to other things). > > I thought there was some concern that we were deoptimizing by having > multiple copies of substantially the same page.
I think that's an independent issue, given that the rest of the docs are largely duplicated between the versions too. > For something like release-9-6-10.html, there's no value in having it > appear in three or four different places. You can't even argue that > the later branches might be more up-to-date: that text is *the same*, > modulo toolchain-forced markup differences, in every branch; or at > least if it isn't it means I screwed up. If somebody proposed adding automatic redirects from the older linked versions to the newest /current/ URL with that version's release notes, I'm not sure I would have argued against that. But I do *not* think it's actually accurate they are the same - it's a significant difference that they're linking to the corresponding version's pages, because those will contain that version's syntax / docs. Greetings, Andres Freund
