Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> >> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> >>> remove tags.
> >> >
> >> >> Sorry, vague commit message (I forgot squash).
> >> >
> >> >> Can I will use git ammend to improve this message?
> >>
> >> Absolutely not.
> >>
> >> > How about git revert, instead? ?It's not apparent to me that these
> >> > changes were improvements.
> >>
> >> I'll buy that one.
> >
> > [ ?CC to docs, committers removed. ]
> >
> > Well, if we want to revert, then we have to add <literal> to all the
> > numbers used in our docs --- there was no logic in what we previously
> > had. ?Do we want that?
> >
> > Here is an example line I did not change:
> >
> > ? an otherwise idle connection. ?A value of 0 uses the system default.
> >
> > Do we want that 0 to appear in a fixed-width font via <literal>?
> > It is easy to do but we should decide.
>
> [ removing -hackers from CC also, no need to cross-post ]
>
> Hmm. I'm starting to lean toward leaving this as you have it.
>
> Which way did we more commonly do it before you applied this patch?
It was mostly like the line I have above, meaning it was not in
fixed-width font, 95% I would say. I modified 19 to be like the rest.
I left <literal> where the context made sense.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +