Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Marti Raudsepp <marti@juffo.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 19:58, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Committed.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Do you think it should be backported to earlier versions too? As it
> > stands, the documentation is misleading.
>
> Well, I committed about five doc patches that day, and I had to decide
> for each one whether it was worth back-patching, and if so whether it
> was worth back-patching all the way or just to 9.1. (We typically
> back-patch things to all applicable versions or not at all, but for
> doc changes sometimes we go back exactly one release so that it will
> make its way onto the most current version of the web site docs a
> little bit more quickly.) I decided against back-patching this one,
> on the theory that we make many documentation improvements over the
> course of every major release cycle, and back-patching all of them
> creates more work for translators than can really be justified by the
> small number of people who read older versions of the documentation.
> It's an arguable point, of course, and I wouldn't have objected if
> someone else had chosen differently.
I agree with your analysis.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
