From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A small typo |
Date: | 2022-09-14 03:49:22 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J9+3to67DpJTZHzQPYbvcOeK7X_51137XCyWoBsPU0SQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-09-14 04:00:14 | Re: A question about wording in messages |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-09-14 03:46:12 | Re: minimum perl version |