Re: pgsql: doc: make ref/*.sgml file header comment layout consistent
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: doc: make ref/*.sgml file header comment layout consistent |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200602175308.GB25612@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: doc: make ref/*.sgml file header comment layout consistent (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-committers |
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 01:36:52PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2020-05-26 03:30, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 01:42:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:08:45AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:57:39AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > > Why was this backpatched? > > > > > > > > Uh, why not? There have been requests to keep the docs as consistent as > > > > possible in back branches. > > > > > > Because this is a cosmetic-only change and not something user-visible, > > > so it may be surprising to see it back-patched. I was a bit surprised > > > first, but after looking at it I don't have any problem with what you > > > did, and you actually made the effort to back-patch it. > > > > I use doc backpatching logic we discussed in this 2018 thread: > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CABUevEyumGh3r05U3_mhRrEU%3DdfacdRr2HEw140MvN7FSBMSyw%40mail.gmail.com#6a92eb3360700dd4d2d392d2b91021ba > > In that thread, the old documentation was factually wrong. So correcting it > is legitimate and desirable. > > What I object to is backpatching inconsequential wording and formatting > changes. If it's not wrong, it should be left alone. In reading that thread, consistency of backbranch docs was mentioned as having value, so if the change is minor, backpatching seemed logical. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
В списке pgsql-committers по дате отправления: