On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Jaime Casanova
> <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
> This manual will be specific for 8.5 so i think all mentions to the
> version should be removed
> Not sure I agree on this point. We have similar mentions elsewhere.
> In this particular example, it's bad form because it's even possible that
> 8.5 will actually be 9.0. You don't want to refer to a version number that
> doesn't even exist for sure yet, lest it leave a loose end that needs to be
> cleaned up later if that number is changed before release.
> Rewriting in terms like "in earlier versions..." instead is one approach.
> Then people will have to manually scan earlier docs to sort that out, I know
> I end up doing that all the time. If you want to keep the note specific,
> saying "in 8.4 and earlier versions [old behavior]" is better than "before
> 8.5 [old behavior]" because it only mentions version numbers that are
> historical rather than future.
Ah, yes, I like "In 8.4 and earlier versions", or maybe "earlier
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-12-03 19:25:06|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Largeobject Access Controls (r2432) |
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2009-12-03 18:50:06|
|Subject: Re: Catastrophic changes to PostgreSQL 8.4|