> On 4 Sep 2024, at 17:34, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 4 Sept 2024 at 20:24, Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote: >> Not mandatory at all, but since you were prepping a typo backpatch anyways I >> figured these could join to put a small dent in reducing risks for future >> backports. > > I think this is pretty good logic. I think fixing comment typos in > ancient code and backpatching to all supported versions isn't good use > of time, but fixing a typo in "recent" code and backpatching to where > that code was added seems useful. Newer code is more likely to need > bug fixes in the future, so going to a bit more effort to make > backpatching those bug fixes easier seems worth the effort.
Absolutely agree. > I just don't know what "recent" should be defined as. I'd say if it's in a > version we've not released yet, that's probably recent. By the time .1 > is out, there's less chance of bugs in new code. Anyway, I doubt hard > guidelines are warranted here, but maybe some hints about best > practices in https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committing_checklist ? That sounds like a good idea. Off the cuff I would agree that unreleased versions and .0 versions are strong candidates (but not mandatory) for trivial backpatches like typos, beyond that the value is likely to be lower. -- Daniel Gustafsson
