Robert Haas wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:603c8f070912030953u625784fme8ff46184c3a1831@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"><pre
wrap="">OnThu, Dec 3, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Jaime Casanova
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec"><jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec></a>
wrote:</pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">This manual will be specific for 8.5 so i think all mentions to the
version should be removed </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
Not sure I agree on this point. We have similar mentions elsewhere. </pre></blockquote> In this particular example,
it'sbad form because it's even possible that 8.5 will actually be 9.0. You don't want to refer to a version number
thatdoesn't even exist for sure yet, lest it leave a loose end that needs to be cleaned up later if that number is
changedbefore release.<br /><br /> Rewriting in terms like "in earlier versions..." instead is one approach. Then
peoplewill have to manually scan earlier docs to sort that out, I know I end up doing that all the time. If you want
tokeep the note specific, saying "in 8.4 and earlier versions [old behavior]" is better than "before 8.5 [old
behavior]"because it only mentions version numbers that are historical rather than future.<br /><br /><pre
class="moz-signature"cols="72">--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:greg@2ndQuadrant.com">greg@2ndQuadrant.com</a> <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"href="http://www.2ndQuadrant.com">www.2ndQuadrant.com</a>
</pre>