Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:47:13 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Joshua Drake wrote:
> >> Is our backpatch policy documented? It does not appear to be in
> >> developer FAQ.
>
> > Seems we need to add it.
>
> I'm not sure that I *want* a formal written-down backpatch policy.

Then we write a formal guideline. It really isn't fair to new developers
to not have any idea how they are going to be able to get a patch
applied to older branches. Something like:

Generally speaking we adhere to the following guideline for patches.
* Security fixes are applied to all applicable branches.
* Bugfixes are applied to all applicable branches
* Note: A patch that addresses a known limitation is generally
not backpatched
* New features are always applied to -HEAD only.

This is not a policy as much as a legend for developers to consider
before they submit their patch.

If we do this, we have the opportunity to just point to the FAQ when
there is no ambiguity. It also increases transparency of the process;
which is always a good thing.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
United States PostgreSQL Association: http://www.postgresql.us/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate