Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 2:38 AM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 06:05:05PM +0700, Ali Akbar wrote:
>>> 2015-01-18 10:44 GMT+07:00 Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net>:
>>>> Btw, for bug-fix patches like this, should the patch creator (me) also
>>>> create patches for back branches?
>> As I understand it, back-patches are the committer's responsibility.
>> The submitter might make suggestions as to how this might be
>> approached if it doesn't appear trivial.
> TBH, I would imagine that patches that can be applied to back-branches
> are a better start point than plain scratch particularly if there are
> diffs in stable branches compared to HEAD. Everybody's time is
> important.
Yeah --- and I'd argue that it's largely a waste of time to work on
creating back-branch patches until the HEAD patch is in final form.
Since we've generally reserved the right for the committer to whack
patches around before committing, I think this means the committer
also has to do the work of back-patch adjustment.
Now a committer who doesn't feel like doing that could certainly say
"here's the version of the HEAD patch that I'm willing to commit, but
it doesn't apply cleanly in back branches; could you work up back-branch
equivalents?". But that hasn't been the usual approach.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
