Re: typos in comments and user docs

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 8:41 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 08:33:40AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 7:26 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 04:43:18PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:45 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 08:47:14AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > > > > Your changes look fine to me on the first read.  I will push this to
> > > > > > HEAD unless there are any objections.   If we want them in
> > > > > > back-branches, we might want to probably segregate the changes based
> > > > > > on the branch until those apply.
> > > > >
> > > > > +1.  It would be nice to back-patch the user-visible changes in the
> > > > > docs.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fair enough, Justin, is it possible for you to segregate the changes
> > > > that can be backpatched?
> > >
> > > Looks like the whole patch can be applied to master and v12 [0].
> >

I tried your patch master and it failed to apply.
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.)
patching file doc/src/sgml/bloom.sgml
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch; use --binary to disable.)
patching file doc/src/sgml/config.sgml
Hunk #1 FAILED at 4318.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file doc/src/sgml/config.sgml.rej

> > If we decide to backpatch, then why not try to backpatch as far as
> > possible (till 9.5)?  If so, then it would be better to separate
> > changes which can be backpatched till 9.5, if that is tedious, then
> > maybe we can just back-patch (in 12) bloom.sgml change as a separate
> > commit and rest commit it in HEAD only.  What do you think?
>
> I don't think I was clear.  My original doc review patches were limited to
> this:
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 05:43:33PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I reviewed docs like this:
> > git log -p remotes/origin/REL_11_STABLE..HEAD -- doc
>
>
> STABLE..REL_12_STABLE.  So after a few minutes earlier today of cherry-pick, I
> concluded that only bloom.sgml is applicable further back than v12.  Probably,
> I either noticed that minor issue at the same time as nearby doc changes in
> v12(?), or maybe noticed that issue later, independently of doc review, but
> then tacked it on to the previous commit, for lack of any better place.
>

I am still not 100% clear, it is better if you can prepare a separate
patch which can be backpatched and the rest that we can apply to HEAD.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com