Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: RELNOTES - Better explanation of PostgreSQL upgrade https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185788 kwade@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG ------- Additional Comments From kwade@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-03-23 15:30 EST ------- In reply to comment #2: > My proposed modification doesn't add anything new, > just rephrases and clarifies one paragraph! Also > this upgrade method is used in PostgreSQL since > version 6.0, I've just checked all the release notes. Regardless, it relies upon application-specific methodology that was different in the past and could be different in the future. Your change makes the [Tip] go from a static piece of useful content directing users to the upstream documentation, to a piece of content that needs to be validity checked for every future release. Just like you checked the release notes going back to PostgreSQL 6.0, we would have to do the same each release to be sure the methodology was still fundamentally the same. Considering that we do not even have an accountable volunteer as lead writer for the database content, I'm very hesitant to add more human-requiring procedures. What I did instead was to bring the directions to go to the URL for upgrade instructions into the [Tip] admonition: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/DatabaseServers We already need to update that upgrade URL for (probably) each release, but it is a single change that gets us the benefit of _all_ of the upstream content on the subject without causing us to duplicate the content writing and publication efforts. Does that make sense? > It's correct to direct users to detailed official > documentation (I suppose that's what you mean with > "experts"...), but I think this small clarification is > needed. Right, anything that points at postgresql.org/docs is 100% "the expert". One is almost never wrong pointing at the upstream content as canonical and best. I'm closing this bug as NOTABUG because the original situation is not a defect in the document. However, I think bringing the URL into the admonition was a Good Thing. Thanks for reporting on the need to provide a stronger direction for users. I hope you understand why we do not want to recreate/reprint actual procedures/directions from canonical sources when a hyperlink can do all the work for us. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
