Re: [DOCS] the sad state of our FAQs

Selena Deckelmann wrote:
> 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.

Yeah so some simple tags/icons like "8.1+, 7.4 only, 8.0 and older" on a
per entry base? We also could use something like an "outdated" template
for flagging specific entries or complete FAQ/wiki pages.
I don't really think that the per version FAQ is really a reality - we
only have one version on the main website (which is actually -HEAD I
think which makes it even more weird) and I really doubt that a lot of
people are reading them elsewhere.

Stefan