Thread: Do we accept doc changes to back branches?

-hackers,


I don't recall, do we allow non-bug fix (or what constitutes a bug) for 
back branches with docs? I have been reviewing the logical replication 
docs and they could use some love but I need to know which branch I 
should start work on.


Thanks,


JD

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. || http://the.postgres.company/ || @cmdpromptinc

PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Advocate: @amplifypostgres || Learn: https://pgconf.org
*****     Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.   *****

Greetings,

* Joshua D. Drake (jd@commandprompt.com) wrote:
> I don't recall, do we allow non-bug fix (or what constitutes a bug)
> for back branches with docs? I have been reviewing the logical
> replication docs and they could use some love but I need to know
> which branch I should start work on.

The short answer, I believe, is to always start with master because we
certainly want doc fixes to be included in the next release (assuming
that documentation exists in master...  if it doesn't then start with
the latest release it's in).  Following that, patches for prior branches
are certainly welcome where they improve the documentation in a
meaningful way.  A good example is Dean's recent improvements on the RLS
documentation by adding a table which lists out the privileges and
policies matrix that RLS follows.

See commit 87c2a17fee784c7e1004ba3d3c5d8147da676783.

Thanks!

Stephen