On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:37, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > Magnus Hagander <[email protected]> writes: >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 20:25, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Uh, why only back to 8.2? > >> Based on the "the others are discontinued just over a month from now >> anyway"... > > Yeah, but they will each have a final release. Don't we want to have > the updated info in the final releases? I don't care about the > incidental CVS mentions, but replacing cvs.sgml with that new chapter > seems worth the trouble.
Hmm. yeah. I'll look at doing it back to 7.4 then. I'll do the incidental mentions as well if they merge cleanly :-) >> BTW, there are a ton of conflicts backpatching each step. > > Welcome to the fun of back-patching. Did you get any leverage from Oh, it's not the first time. I just wanted to make note that one, but only one, conflicted on the $PostgreSQL$ tag. > cherry-picking, or did it seem to be just as stupid as plain "patch"? It *seemed* smarter. But I didn't try to backpatchthe same thing both ways, so it's hard to tell for sure. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
