Dean,
* Dean Rasheed (dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com) wrote:
> On 26 September 2017 at 00:42, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > That's a relatively minor point, however, and I do feel that this patch
> > is a definite improvement. Were you thinking of just applying this for
> > v10, or back-patching all or part of it..?
>
> I was planning on back-patching it to 9.5, taking out the parts
> relating the restrictive policies as appropriate. Currently the 9.5
> and 9.6 docs are identical, as are 10 and HEAD, and 9.5/9.6 only
> differs from 10/HEAD in a couple of places where they mention
> restrictive policies. IMO we should stick to that, making any
> improvements available in the back-branches. I was also thinking the
> same about the new summary table, although I haven't properly reviewed
> that yet.
Makes sense to me.
+1
Thanks!
Stephen
