On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 6:26 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 05:39:46PM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 01:17:04AM -0300, Euler Taveira wrote: > > 2018-03-11 1:43 GMT-03:00 PG Doc comments form <noreply@postgresql.org>: > > > The documentation for the varbit data type is missing the size > parameter "[ > > > (n) ]". > > > > > Good catch! It seems to be an oversight in commit > > 768b647ead78d0d63915c1708cad13c2468f9440. The attached patch adds it. > > Wow, that commit is from 2004. Patch applied and backpatched to v10. > > > If it goes all the way back to 2004, why not backpatch further?
Uh, I am always debating how important it is to backpatck vs the churn we require of translations of our docs. In this case, it didn't seem worthwhile to have all of those translations try to deal with this change for all those back branches.
If it's a clean backpatch I'd say it is -- people who are using PostgreSQL 9.6 will be reading the documentation for 9.6 etc, so they will not know about the fix then.
If it's not a clean backpatch I can certainly see considering it, but if it's not a lot of effort then I'd say it's definitely worth it.
I really don't think considerations for translators of the *docs* are an issue here. If you don't backpatch it, then nobody gets the fix. If you backpatch it, then English readers do get the fix, and translated docs readers *might* get the fix, depending on how they are maintained. It's not like translatable strings where if they change in a backbranch they will revert to English unless the translation is updated -- for the docs, they just don't get the fix.