Re: [HACKERS] Mega-commits to "stable" version

Note that I have no problems with someone requesting a patch to be backed
out...IMHO, anything dealing with the configuration process should be
brought back into -STABLE (ie. the CPU changes that Bruce did)...but
anything else that I've changed, or will change, are generally what I
consider to be "safe bets"...if I'm wrong, they are easy to back
out...just let me know...

On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy> writes:
> > Another 'mega-commit' of back-patches ... 
> > 
> > - - integrating the #include file cleanup that Bruce recently did
> > - - got the CPU change to adt/Makefile 
> > - - changing DOUBLEALIGN -> MAXALIGN
> 
> Is anyone else disturbed by wholesale changes to what is supposed to
> be a stable release?
> 
> I am sure Marc will say these are low-risk changes --- but they're not
> *no* risk, because there is always a chance of propagating part of
> some other change that you didn't want, or failing to propagate all
> of the change you did want.  And how much testing will the modified
> 6.5.x code get before it gets published as a stable version?
> 
> My feeling is that we should only back-patch essential bug fixes.
> You can define "essential" as "anything a user requests", if you like.
> But surely code cleanups do not qualify unless they fix a demonstrable
> bug.
> 
> Just my $0.02...
> 
>             regards, tom lane
> 

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org