On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:22:38 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > So what have we decided about this suggestion. Should I submit the
> > patch or just forget about it? So far some people like it and some
> > people think that it is unneccessary. No one so far has suggested that
> > it would harm the system or people's use of it.
> I have gone over the discussion about this issue. I think there is
> interest in a ReST output format, but only a 100% ReST-compliant one. I
> don't think anyone felt they wanted a ReST-like format just for
> appearance sake. For that reason, I have added this TODO entry:
Really? I thought that the opposite was true, that the argument
against this change was that it was trying to be ReST. That's why I
made a few posts arguing that while it mostly worked ReST, it was
really just a logical extension of the existing border control.
> As I remember, no actual patch was posted for this.
There was. I am attaching it again in case there were any changes to
original files in the meantime.
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
Description: application/octet-stream (4.6 KB)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2009-01-07 22:56:32|
|Subject: Re: Significant oversight in that #include-removal
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-01-07 22:49:12|
|Subject: Re: Significant oversight in that #include-removal script |