On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 08:33:40AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 7:26 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 04:43:18PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:45 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 08:47:14AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > > Your changes look fine to me on the first read. I will push this to
> > > > > HEAD unless there are any objections. If we want them in
> > > > > back-branches, we might want to probably segregate the changes based
> > > > > on the branch until those apply.
> > > >
> > > > +1. It would be nice to back-patch the user-visible changes in the
> > > > docs.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Fair enough, Justin, is it possible for you to segregate the changes
> > > that can be backpatched?
> >
> > Looks like the whole patch can be applied to master and v12 [0].
>
> If we decide to backpatch, then why not try to backpatch as far as
> possible (till 9.5)? If so, then it would be better to separate
> changes which can be backpatched till 9.5, if that is tedious, then
> maybe we can just back-patch (in 12) bloom.sgml change as a separate
> commit and rest commit it in HEAD only. What do you think?
I don't think I was clear. My original doc review patches were limited to
this:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 05:43:33PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> I reviewed docs like this:
> git log -p remotes/origin/REL_11_STABLE..HEAD -- doc
STABLE..REL_12_STABLE. So after a few minutes earlier today of cherry-pick, I
concluded that only bloom.sgml is applicable further back than v12. Probably,
I either noticed that minor issue at the same time as nearby doc changes in
v12(?), or maybe noticed that issue later, independently of doc review, but
then tacked it on to the previous commit, for lack of any better place.
Justin