Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > > Yea, let me try again and rephrase some of it to highlight the behavior > > and not the version change. > > Well the behaviour changed with a given version which is crucial > information for somebody doing a migration... It is also useful > historical information for people reading the manual - it is not > impossible that this could effect on the application design... > > > > >> I also agree with the objection that there are still lots of people who > >> are going to be trying to port old apps to 9.0. > > > > Well, I stand by my statement that it is a judgement call on how much we > > keep, and there is a cost to readers to keep it, but there isn't very > > much of it. Are the people who wanted more aggressive removal OK with > > putting back the pre-7.4 documentation mentions? > > > Who actually are those people? I don't recall anybody complaining that > we have too much information in our docs (maybe that they wnat better > search or a better structure).
Well, by that argument, should we have Postgres 6.3 information in our documentation? I doubt anyone would explicitly complain about it, but it would serve very little useful purpose and make our documentation harder to read. I don't really care if we remove the old stuff or not --- removing it, or at least reviewing possible removal stuff, is a standard practice for every major relesae, so I did it. If people want nothing removed, that is fine with me. In fact, I have heard enough complaints. I am reversing my removals and if someone else wants to do the job, go ahead. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com PG East: http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
