* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 05:40:35PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > > I thought the idea was to backpatch documentation saying "it's a good idea > > > to change this value to x because of y". Not actually referring to the > > > upcoming change directly. And I still think that part is a good idea, as > > > it > > > helps people avoid potential security pitfalls. > > > > I agree with this but I don't really see why we wouldn't say "hey, this > > is going to change in 9.5." Peter's argument sounds like he'd rather we > > not make any changes to the existing documentation, and I don't agree > > with that, and if we're making changes then, imv, we might as well > > comment that the default is changed in 9.5. > > I agree with Peter --- it is unwise to reference a future released > feature in a backbranch doc patch. Updating the backbranch docs to add > a recommendation is fine.
Alright, I don't agree but it's not worth the argument. I'll work on
the doc-update patch for the back-branches.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
