Note that I have no problems with someone requesting a patch to be backed
out...IMHO, anything dealing with the configuration process should be
brought back into -STABLE (ie. the CPU changes that Bruce did)...but
anything else that I've changed, or will change, are generally what I
consider to be "safe bets"...if I'm wrong, they are easy to back
out...just let me know...
On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy> writes:
> > Another 'mega-commit' of back-patches ...
> >
> > - - integrating the #include file cleanup that Bruce recently did
> > - - got the CPU change to adt/Makefile
> > - - changing DOUBLEALIGN -> MAXALIGN
>
> Is anyone else disturbed by wholesale changes to what is supposed to
> be a stable release?
>
> I am sure Marc will say these are low-risk changes --- but they're not
> *no* risk, because there is always a chance of propagating part of
> some other change that you didn't want, or failing to propagate all
> of the change you did want. And how much testing will the modified
> 6.5.x code get before it gets published as a stable version?
>
> My feeling is that we should only back-patch essential bug fixes.
> You can define "essential" as "anything a user requests", if you like.
> But surely code cleanups do not qualify unless they fix a demonstrable
> bug.
>
> Just my $0.02...
>
> regards, tom lane
>
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org