| From: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Release note trimming: another modest proposal |
| Date: | 2019-02-04 22:35:00 |
| Message-ID: | ba96488e-2025-987b-0885-f7c647e1e1d2@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 2/4/19 5:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> On 2/4/19 4:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> After a bit more thought, I'm inclined to propose that the policy be
>>> that we *don't* update the surviving back branches for branch retirement.
>
>> ...so I guess in turn, we would not update back branches with newer
>> releases as well, i.e. adding references about 12 to 10? That makes
>> sense, and eases some of the burden on releases.
>
> No, I definitely didn't have any intention of putting in forward
> references to later releases. That seems a bit weird.
Agreed. Anyway, I like the overall solution: +1
Thanks for writing the patch,
Jonathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-05 00:44:37 | Re: Release note trimming: another modest proposal |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-04 22:23:28 | Re: Release note trimming: another modest proposal |