On 15 July 2014 22:01, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 15 July 2014 19:15, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> While I'm not necessarily objecting to the content of this patch, >>> I do have a problem with the process. Where was the discussion of >>> why this change should be back-patched? > >> There was recent discussion of it on-list and a public request to >> backpatch, which I agreed with and acknowledged. > > I searched the archives looking for that discussion and couldn't find it; > can you provide a link?
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e1u2jod-0005w4...@gemulon.postgresql.org >> I kept the commit message deliberately identical to help people, not to >> confuse. > > That's appropriate when you're committing functionally identical patches > into multiple branches at about the same time. In a situation like this, > though, I'd argue that the later commits ought to explicitly reference > the older one ("this is a back-patch of commit NNNNNNN"). As it stands, > it's very hard for anyone looking at the commit logs to make the > connection. Sounds reasonable, I will endeavour to follow that in future. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
