On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 1:08 PM David G. Johnston <[email protected]> wrote: > Presently it’s the same criteria as for the code - things deemed bug fixes > get back-patched; pure enhancements do not.
Well, okay. Bear with me a moment because I need to calibrate to the community norms. Is the consensus that this is not a "bug fix"? Because I know what the feature does, but I cannot understand the current paragraph without rereading it several times. On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 8:18 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > It depends if there is a wrong explanation then it makes sense to > backpatch but as this is a wording improvement, it should be okay to > commit it as HEAD-only patch. I know it's okay, but I *want* to backpatch, and I would have yesterday except for your email. Does that raise concerns or cause problems in practice? (Should I drop this as not a battle really worth having? Clearly nothing is exploding; I just don't get why docs contributors have to wait ten months for improvements to land if everyone says "oh yeah, that's better.") > Would you like to take care of this? Yes. Thanks, --Jacob
