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?
> 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.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
