Thread: pgsql: doc: make ref/*.sgml file header comment layout consistent
doc: make ref/*.sgml file header comment layout consistent Branch ------ REL_11_STABLE Details ------- https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/d9cbdec23fd63a8ac650ab174d5d33ab5fcc3bb4 Modified Files -------------- doc/src/sgml/ref/checkpoint.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/create_cast.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/create_collation.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/create_conversion.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/create_foreign_table.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/create_function.sgml | 1 + doc/src/sgml/ref/create_procedure.sgml | 1 + doc/src/sgml/ref/create_transform.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_cast.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_collation.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_conversion.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_foreign_table.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_transform.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/load.sgml | 1 + doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_config-ref.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_restore.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/pgarchivecleanup.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/pgtestfsync.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/pgtesttiming.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml | 5 ++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/set_constraints.sgml | 6 +++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/set_session_auth.sgml | 6 +++++- doc/src/sgml/ref/set_transaction.sgml | 6 +++++- 24 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
On 2020-05-15 14:52, Bruce Momjian wrote: > doc: make ref/*.sgml file header comment layout consistent > > Branch > ------ > REL_11_STABLE Why was this backpatched? -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:57:39AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2020-05-15 14:52, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > doc: make ref/*.sgml file header comment layout consistent > > > > Branch > > ------ > > REL_11_STABLE > > Why was this backpatched? Uh, why not? There have been requests to keep the docs as consistent as possible in back branches. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
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. -- Michael
Attachment
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 -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
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. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
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