Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Marti Raudsepp <ma...@juffo.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 19:58, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Committed. > > > > Thanks! > > > > Do you think it should be backported to earlier versions too? As it > > stands, the documentation is misleading. > > Well, I committed about five doc patches that day, and I had to decide > for each one whether it was worth back-patching, and if so whether it > was worth back-patching all the way or just to 9.1. (We typically > back-patch things to all applicable versions or not at all, but for > doc changes sometimes we go back exactly one release so that it will > make its way onto the most current version of the web site docs a > little bit more quickly.) I decided against back-patching this one, > on the theory that we make many documentation improvements over the > course of every major release cycle, and back-patching all of them > creates more work for translators than can really be justified by the > small number of people who read older versions of the documentation. > It's an arguable point, of course, and I wouldn't have objected if > someone else had chosen differently.
I agree with your analysis. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
