On 2014-01-28 12:29:25 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 02:25:51PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Bruce Momjian escribió: > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:20:39AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > > > > On 2014-01-28 11:14:49 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > >> OK, so does anyone object to removing this comment line? > > > > > > > > > Let's just not do anything. This is change for changes sake. Not > > > > > improving anything the slightest. > > > > > > > > Indeed. I'd actually request that you revert your previous change to > > > > the > > > > comment, as it didn't improve matters and is only likely to cause pain > > > > for > > > > future back-patching. > > > > > > OK, so we have a don't change anything and a revert. I am thinking the > > > new wording as a super-minor improvement. Anyone else want to vote? > > > > I vote to revert to the original and can we please wait for longer than > > a few hours on a weekend before applying this kind of change that is > > obviously not without controversy. > > OK, reverted. I have to question how well-balanced we are when a word > change in a C comment can cause so much contention.
The question is rather why to do such busywork changes in the first place imo. Without ever looking at more than one a few lines up/down especially. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
