Re: Release note trimming: another modest proposal
"Jonathan S. Katz" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.devel.documentation |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2/5/19 1:02 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2019-01-26 10:06:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> "Jonathan S. Katz" <[email protected]> writes: >>> The one "caveat" I will bring up is that once pushed and applied to the >>> site, we would bring introduce a lot of 404s into the website. >> >> Hm. In principle we could probably insert some redirects, but >> I doubt it's worth the trouble. >> >> If I haven't heard objections, I'll see about making this happen >> during the first week of Feb (after the CF closes, but before >> it's time to do the February releases' notes). > > Gah, I'd skipped this thread, because I was OK, if not happy, about the > original modest proposal (trimming to supported versions). My fault. > > For the record: I think this is a terrible idea. Makes it much harder to > figure out what changed when, and requires per-branch incantations to > grep through the log. That's not to speak of the fact that now it's > just about impossible to reference all releasenotes on the website in a > useful manner now. How frequently are you referencing release notes from older versions -- and I don't mean ones that are just deprecated, but things like 8.2? Or even minor versions such as 8.2.5? Is there a way to keep a balance on the code side: keep the source files in but don't reference them to be built? That may not help with the tarball size, but would certainly still help build times + lower HTML/PDF output. > > For crying out loud, super prominent and often referenced URLs like > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/release-10.html > are now broken, and soon URLs like > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/release-10.html > will be too. We can set up some redirect rules for this in pgweb. We have a record of what the latest version is, so we can intercept anything going to `/current/release-(1?[0-9]+(\.[0-9]?` (untested regex) and point it to the correct version. 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. Jonathan
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEE+oS2la8r95ogZD/x8QSccp8cZScFAlxZlJgACgkQ8QSccp8c ZSf3bg/7BcPNpDOGaT2L9U35yHPzKkhU5VXPXbOtWYDthxpJffAcRncx12BAq9K0 pqXHPoTMlVh8fVi4uCtkXXSFHRnICwDLFwqUzmerQWQ4NfXc3pT3yb8sTgCSx0Je pHVdT+zV3NT3Y+NDcJUiROwzuruWVdsWajTlogJrcFiVAY6tm9ekSDwmSPZxUG29 g2U3NksGYjfrymP8kwvBXDZPV1t/ATrZK/Zc3NHmmLME3OmbeBpeKrrsITNwCqbQ ecjb/tbo0m+xJgz7ZqEQdWUsFFIXAPaxttPC+1a1lMhF5wyfjwFqXZ4V7WjUZIVe J5KXX/dBzFKHOh13zwOxFqufWR6cX7Hr7gtRz8kWakK/WZd1MX/X3LRAFeSSYK8y gkLVuezso6IcjsezT9iIWp/r2aPmuM5inq2hcAiQ9spqgtdmkAd0MCA9bvcU2p69 Re1mHszEKXovjoy6LyMCu/T03TGUhKNQryt23AARUrJTlbrn/JOWXtINBeDTMtuo v/zu4G0DU0EYest6jCaGXh8yzXb5QMccmNw88UTqmZODGpLM2sC/cUwiL08qXvOh 7I6UtJZw7GfeOukAPa4bk+D+VJlaTPG2AtY9Prlp7rEB82NqIYTFWOr5mnzEqVrz DJUJYveP1FDg4LyRZtGxuFKZhgXm6pWXRl56ibOcLtd1aNwAdc4= =mBiR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----