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
