This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Ühel kenal päeval (teisipäev, 25. jaanuar 2005, 21:10-0400), kirjutas
> Marc G. Fournier:
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> So if we have to address it we call it 8.0.7 or something. My point is
>>> that we don't need to address it until we actually find out the patent
>>> is being enforced against someone, and that possibility is quite unlikely.
>> Ah, so you are advocating waiting *until* the problem exists, even *after*
>> we know a) there may be a problem and b) we know that we can fix it ... ?
> It may be my englisk skills, as I'm not a native speaker, but your
> temporal logic escapes me ...
> ... waiting *until* the problem exists ... there *may be* a problem ...
> so *bruce* advocates waiting *until* there *is* a problem, *we* know it
> *may be* (*there* ?) and we know we *can* fix the problem that *may
> be* ?
Now you've totally confused me *shakes head*
Bruce is advocating waiting until the Patent has been Granted, instead of
doing something about it now, when we know the patent is going through the
system (and will likely get granted) ... a "reactive" vs "proactive"
response to the problem.
Basically, after the patent is granted, we are going to scramble to get
rid of the ARC stuff, instead of taking the time leadign up to the
granting to get rid of it so that when granted, it isn't something we have
to concern ourselves with ...
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: George Essig||Date: 2005-01-26 18:12:12|
|Subject: Deferrable Unique Constraints|
|Previous:||From: noman naeem||Date: 2005-01-26 17:58:08|
|Subject: Data statement format used by the .sh scripts|