On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 07:27:59AM -0500, Lew wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >Is there any particular reason why this work can't be maintained as
> >a branch to the main driver? My understanding is your work is
> >based off that one? Being able to work like that would make things
> >a lot easier to review.
> >That said, such a process would also be a lot easier if the JDBC
> >driver wasn't in cvs ;)
> Why is that a problem?
Because to an excellent approximation, in practice, CVS does not
actually provide the ability to branch and merge, which means that
patches like Radoslav's are developed pretty much in isolation.
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-12-01 18:53:09|
|Subject: Re: We really ought to do something about O_DIRECT and data=journalled on ext4 |
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-12-01 18:51:19|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby: too many KnownAssignedXids|
pgsql-jdbc by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-12-01 18:56:03|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2 |
|Previous:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2010-12-01 18:05:15|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Improved JDBC driver part 2|