On 2/4/19 5:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > "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.
Agreed. Anyway, I like the overall solution: +1 Thanks for writing the patch, Jonathan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
