On 2014-01-28 12:29:25 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 02:25:51PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian escribió:
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:20:39AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > > > > On 2014-01-28 11:14:49 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > >> OK, so does anyone object to removing this comment line?
> > > >
> > > > > Let's just not do anything. This is change for changes sake. Not
> > > > > improving anything the slightest.
> > > >
> > > > Indeed. I'd actually request that you revert your previous change to the
> > > > comment, as it didn't improve matters and is only likely to cause pain for
> > > > future back-patching.
> > >
> > > OK, so we have a don't change anything and a revert. I am thinking the
> > > new wording as a super-minor improvement. Anyone else want to vote?
> >
> > I vote to revert to the original and can we please wait for longer than
> > a few hours on a weekend before applying this kind of change that is
> > obviously not without controversy.
>
> OK, reverted. I have to question how well-balanced we are when a word
> change in a C comment can cause so much contention.
The question is rather why to do such busywork changes in the first
place imo. Without ever looking at more than one a few lines up/down
especially.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services