pgsql: doc: make ref/*.sgml file header comment layout consistent
doc: make ref/*.sgml file header comment layout consistent
Branch
------
REL_11_STABLE
Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/d9cbdec23fd63a8ac650ab174d5d33ab5fcc3bb4
Modified Files
--------------
doc/src/sgml/ref/checkpoint.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/create_cast.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/create_collation.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/create_conversion.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/create_foreign_table.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/create_function.sgml | 1 +
doc/src/sgml/ref/create_procedure.sgml | 1 +
doc/src/sgml/ref/create_transform.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_cast.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_collation.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_conversion.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_foreign_table.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/drop_transform.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/load.sgml | 1 +
doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_config-ref.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/pg_restore.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/pgarchivecleanup.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/pgtestfsync.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/pgtesttiming.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/pgupgrade.sgml | 5 ++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/set_constraints.sgml | 6 +++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/set_session_auth.sgml | 6 +++++-
doc/src/sgml/ref/set_transaction.sgml | 6 +++++-
24 files changed, 90 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
On 2020-05-15 14:52, Bruce Momjian wrote:
doc: make ref/*.sgml file header comment layout consistent
Branch
------
REL_11_STABLE
Why was this backpatched?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:57:39AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2020-05-15 14:52, Bruce Momjian wrote:
doc: make ref/*.sgml file header comment layout consistent
Branch
------
REL_11_STABLEWhy was this backpatched?
Uh, why not? There have been requests to keep the docs as consistent as
possible in back branches.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:08:45AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:57:39AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Why was this backpatched?
Uh, why not? There have been requests to keep the docs as consistent as
possible in back branches.
Because this is a cosmetic-only change and not something user-visible,
so it may be surprising to see it back-patched. I was a bit surprised
first, but after looking at it I don't have any problem with what you
did, and you actually made the effort to back-patch it.
--
Michael
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 01:42:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:08:45AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:57:39AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Why was this backpatched?
Uh, why not? There have been requests to keep the docs as consistent as
possible in back branches.Because this is a cosmetic-only change and not something user-visible,
so it may be surprising to see it back-patched. I was a bit surprised
first, but after looking at it I don't have any problem with what you
did, and you actually made the effort to back-patch it.
I use doc backpatching logic we discussed in this 2018 thread:
/messages/by-id/CABUevEyumGh3r05U3_mhRrEU=dfacdRr2HEw140MvN7FSBMSyw@mail.gmail.com
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +On 2020-05-26 03:30, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 01:42:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:08:45AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:57:39AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Why was this backpatched?
Uh, why not? There have been requests to keep the docs as consistent as
possible in back branches.Because this is a cosmetic-only change and not something user-visible,
so it may be surprising to see it back-patched. I was a bit surprised
first, but after looking at it I don't have any problem with what you
did, and you actually made the effort to back-patch it.I use doc backpatching logic we discussed in this 2018 thread:
/messages/by-id/CABUevEyumGh3r05U3_mhRrEU=dfacdRr2HEw140MvN7FSBMSyw@mail.gmail.com
In that thread, the old documentation was factually wrong. So
correcting it is legitimate and desirable.
What I object to is backpatching inconsequential wording and formatting
changes. If it's not wrong, it should be left alone.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 01:36:52PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2020-05-26 03:30, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 01:42:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:08:45AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 11:57:39AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Why was this backpatched?
Uh, why not? There have been requests to keep the docs as consistent as
possible in back branches.Because this is a cosmetic-only change and not something user-visible,
so it may be surprising to see it back-patched. I was a bit surprised
first, but after looking at it I don't have any problem with what you
did, and you actually made the effort to back-patch it.I use doc backpatching logic we discussed in this 2018 thread:
/messages/by-id/CABUevEyumGh3r05U3_mhRrEU=dfacdRr2HEw140MvN7FSBMSyw@mail.gmail.com
In that thread, the old documentation was factually wrong. So correcting it
is legitimate and desirable.What I object to is backpatching inconsequential wording and formatting
changes. If it's not wrong, it should be left alone.
In reading that thread, consistency of backbranch docs was mentioned as
having value, so if the change is minor, backpatching seemed logical.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee