Re: pgsql: pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Standard operating procedure everyone follos is that you should post the
> >> patch to -hackers first, wait a couple of hours for any possible input,
> >> push the commit, then reply to the original -hackers thread stating you
> >> have committed it.
>
> > I don't think we need that formality with a doc patch. I don't see
> > others doing that.
>
> I've always thought that a "patch applied" followup mail was a waste of
> time and readers' attention. Anybody who cares about that will know it
> was applied because they're watching pgsql-committers or the git feed.

I do find the "patch applied" emails helpful when I am reading email
threads, and I can see the patch was applied. For me, it closes the
loop, and sometimes the commit message isn't clear about what patch
thread it closes. In fact, when that "patch applied" message is
missing, I have to sometimes hunt around to see if we closed that item.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +