Bug #55521 | do we need innodb plugin release notes | ||
---|---|---|---|
Submitted: | 23 Jul 2010 18:06 | Modified: | 18 Oct 2010 19:03 |
Reporter: | Mark Callaghan | Email Updates: | |
Status: | Closed | Impact on me: | |
Category: | MySQL Server: Documentation | Severity: | S3 (Non-critical) |
Version: | 5.1.49 | OS: | Any |
Assigned to: | John Russell | CPU Architecture: | Any |
Tags: | documentation, innodb, plugin |
[23 Jul 2010 18:06]
Mark Callaghan
[9 Aug 2010 18:30]
John Russell
I have removed the misleading link from the Ref Man changelog. Also added a statement on the change page for the InnoDB Plugin (http://dev.mysql.com/doc/innodb-plugin/1.0/en/innodb-changes.html) stating that subsequent updates are folded into the Ref Man changelog. I'm setting this to "need feedback" rather than closing it, because maybe the presentation is not optimal yet. E.g. should the changelog in the Plugin doc have a subhead so that the statement about the 1.09+ history is easier to see? It seems easy to overlook there in the chapter intro. Do the InnoDB items in the Ref Man changelog need to be tagged with "InnoDB:" to make them stand out more? Is there any confusion between fixes applied in 5.1.x to the built-in InnoDB versus the Plugin?
[9 Sep 2010 23:00]
Bugs System
No feedback was provided for this bug for over a month, so it is being suspended automatically. If you are able to provide the information that was originally requested, please do so and change the status of the bug back to "Open".
[18 Oct 2010 19:03]
John Russell
In the InnoDB Plugin manual, I put the link to the Ref Man changelog under a separate heading to make it more visible. In the Ref Man changelog for 5.1.49: http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.1/en/news-5-1-49.html I put an "InnoDB Storage Engine" tag next to the InnoDB-related entries to group them together and make them stand out better. Will spread that convention to the other 5.1 and 5.5 changelog sections.