On 2/4/19 5:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org> writes:
>> On 2/4/19 4:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> After a bit more thought, I'm inclined to propose that the policy be
>>> that we *don't* update the surviving back branches for branch retirement.
>
>> ...so I guess in turn, we would not update back branches with newer
>> releases as well, i.e. adding references about 12 to 10? That makes
>> sense, and eases some of the burden on releases.
>
> No, I definitely didn't have any intention of putting in forward
> references to later releases. That seems a bit weird.
Agreed. Anyway, I like the overall solution: +1
Thanks for writing the patch,
Jonathan
