Re: Release Notes Archive Patch

On 2/28/19 7:19 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:30 AM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org
> <mailto:jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>> wrote:

> So there could be an issue with that as we would have to carry the
> lag/lead somehow. Not insurmountable, but given this is minimally
> invasive, it would take a bit more complicating of that SQL query that
> was just simplified.
>
>
> Well, for "previous" you wouldn't need SQL :) But yes, you'd need a "do
> we have release notes for the next version" in there. But you only need
> those on the one-page views, so it's really not that ba
>
> I think it's worth it, it's definitely something *I* use a lot in the
> old interface.

I'll look into adding it then.

>
> (And as a minor note, for the query, I don't think adding major/minor
> versions in the WHERE clause is enough to make it fast. You need to push
> it down into the actual filename in the innermost where-clause, to make
> sure we get an index scan. Shouldn't be too hard)

Yeah...it kind of makes constructing the query a bit uglier, which is
why I avoided it. I'm happy to do it, but I think that given a) it's not
a lot of rows and b) it's going to be behind varnish most of the time
anyway that I'm not too concerned.

As a compromise, I can come up with a version that does this, and we can
decide what to do from there.

>
> > 2. Links within the docs are just plain broken? E.g. the 9.6.0 release
> > notes link to /docs/release/9.6.0/app-pg-dumpall.html which clearly
> > doesn't exist. IIRC we discussed something around this, but it
> seems to
> > have never made it into the patches? (It is listed in your known
> > adjustments to be made above, but I could also not find a newer
> patch?)
>
> I could not reproduce this. The links work fine for me.
>
>
> It could be because I was on the wrong version of the patch. They do
> work in the patch you sent now.

Great.

> > 5. In general, there's a huge amount of numbers on the index page. I'm
> > not sure what's a good way to format it better, I normally leave
> that to
> > you :) But the page is not very friendly at this point with the
> massive
> > list of numbers you have to scroll through.
>
> We could list out the major versions, then have the minor versions. I'm
> not opposed to that. See attached.
>
>  
> Hmm. I'm still not sure I like that big long list of numbers offhand.

Why? It's in the specific version that you're looking for. It also makes
it easy to find the version you exactly want, instead of having to click
previous/next to find it. It's no different than:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/release.html

In fact, it's a similar workflow:

1. Pick your major version
2. Pick your minor version
3. Enjoy a helping of release notes.

If anything, it's one less step because you don't have to go into the
specific documentation, click "Release Notes" and find them.

>
> In fact -- do we need a separate page? What if we just added them to
> /docs/manual/ and /docs/manual/archive/?

I strongly feel we need a separate page. It makes them so much easier to
find, and given all the hubbub let's make it easy for our users to find
the release notes, not buried somewhere.

> And then we highlight the release notes of the latest version directly
> on /docs/. 
>
> And maybe add a link in the "online manuals" section out on the
> righthand side of /docs/?

I was actually thinking in the release notes themselves, we add a right
nav that shows all the minor versions for the particular major version
of the release notes.

I'll post another revision soon.

Thanks,

Jonathan