On 15 July 2014 22:01, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 15 July 2014 19:15, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> While I'm not necessarily objecting to the content of this patch,
>>> I do have a problem with the process.  Where was the discussion of
>>> why this change should be back-patched?
>> There was recent discussion of it on-list and a public request to
>> backpatch, which I agreed with and acknowledged.
> I searched the archives looking for that discussion and couldn't find it;
> can you provide a link?


>> I kept the commit message deliberately identical to help people, not to 
>> confuse.
> That's appropriate when you're committing functionally identical patches
> into multiple branches at about the same time.  In a situation like this,
> though, I'd argue that the later commits ought to explicitly reference
> the older one ("this is a back-patch of commit NNNNNNN").  As it stands,
> it's very hard for anyone looking at the commit logs to make the
> connection.

Sounds reasonable, I will endeavour to follow that in future.

 Simon Riggs                   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:

Reply via email to