From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A small typo |
Date: | 2022-09-14 04:04:29 |
Message-ID: | 20220914.130429.636331891389403915.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:19:22 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 9:10 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >
> > There are basically two good reasons to back-patch comment changes:
> >
> > * fear that the comment is wrong enough to mislead people looking
> > at the older branch;
> >
> > * fear that leaving it alone will create a merge hazard for future
> > back-patches.
> >
> > It doesn't seem to me that either of those is a strong concern
> > in this case. In the absence of these concerns, back-patching
> > seems like make-work (and useless expenditure of buildfarm
> > cycles).
> >
>
> Agreed. I'll push this to HEAD after some time.
Thanks for committing, and for the clarification about back-patching
policy!
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-09-14 04:24:49 | Re: Expand palloc/pg_malloc API |
Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-09-14 04:00:14 | Re: A question about wording in messages |