Re: [DOCS] the sad state of our FAQs

On Mar 7, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Although to be frank I think the value of per-version FAQs is
>> dubious.
>> I would be totally okay with seeing the back-branch FAQs abandoned in
>> favour of the One FAQ (to rule them all, etc).
>
> I think it might well be true though that it'd be better to have one
> FAQ
> with answers that say something like "Before version x.y, do this ...
> in x.y and later, do that ...". That approach makes sure that people
> know that they are reading version-specific advice; whereas the
> separate
> FAQs approach makes it pretty easy for people to fail to notice that
> they are reading advice that's inappropriate for their version.

Another approach would be to tag each FAQ with what version it was
created for and what version it is deprecated for. (pretty much what
Brenden suggested, but slightly less overhead than listing all
versions the FAQ applies to)

Then we could do cool things like generate the version specific FAQs
programmatically and not ever worry about removing them.

-Selena