"Jonathan S. Katz" <jk...@postgresql.org> writes:
> On 2/4/19 4:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After a bit more thought, I'm inclined to propose that the policy be
>> that we *don't* update the surviving back branches for branch retirement.
> ...so I guess in turn, we would not update back branches with newer
> releases as well, i.e. adding references about 12 to 10? That makes
> sense, and eases some of the burden on releases.
No, I definitely didn't have any intention of putting in forward
references to later releases. That seems a bit weird.
regards, tom lane
