Re: Release Notes Archive Patch

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:30 AM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 2/19/19 5:42 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> > A few comments on this one:
> >
> > 1. It loses the "go to next minor" and "go to previous minor" links in
> > the previous release notes. Those should be easy enough to get back, but
> > should be done. E.g. if I'm on 9.6.3, I want links to 9.6.2 and 9.6.4.
> > And we should also use the change to make it more "explicit" and *also*
> > have a link to 9.6.0 on all of them amonst the links themsel
> >
> > 2b. In fact, we should use this chance to create a proper set of links,
> > e.g. when you get to release notes for 9.6.0, it should right then and
> > there provide a list of all the minor releases I think -- to avoid
> > having to go back.
>
> 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 bad.

I think it's worth it, it's definitely something *I* use a lot in the old
interface.

(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)

> 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.

> > 3. That SQL query really needs some documentation, because it takes
> > quite a bit of reading to figure out what it really means. And while it
> > works on my dev install, it fails when i test-ran it on the current
> > database with the error "ERROR: invalid input syntax for type numeric:
> > "prior". Most likely it comes from there being a file called
> > release-prior.html in versions 9.4-11.0 now.
> >
> > It should also be reviewed for the fact that you are pulling back *all*
> > the documentation including *all* the contents in order to render a list
> > of versions...That gets annoyingly expensive when you actually have the
> > full set of documentation.
>
> Per off-list discussion, Magnus added a simpler query that was provided.
>
> >
> > 4. The "jump to..." list should probably be split between supported and
> > unsupported versions, to keep it a bit less.
>
> Well, with the below, I don't think we need that.
>
> >
> > 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.

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

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/?

Thoughts?

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>