Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pgsql/src/interfaces/odbc/windev README.txt bi ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgsql/src/interfaces/odbc/windev README.txt bi ...
Date: 2002-01-11 05:02:45
Message-ID: 27257.1010725365@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> Sure, CVS supports that.

> What I meant was if PostgreSQL team allows it as the
> policy ?

Personally, I'd prefer to see development branches off the mainline
than dumping stuff into mainline that doesn't really belong there.
I don't think there's been any "official policy" issued either way;
but if core wants to vote on it, that's how I'd vote.

> The only but very significant reason I can see about psqlodbc
> CVS is that people can see (nearly) up to date source at the
> official place. People can compile it by themselves and try it.

A fair point.  Other projects than this would likely already have
a CVS branch going for the-next-version.  Historically we've not
done that, so as to avoid having to double-patch bug fixes into
two separate branches.  But this release cycle is going so darn
slow that I'm half inclined to agree that making a 7.3 branch now
would be better.

[ Or, we could get off our collective rears and get 7.2 out the
door.  Hiroshi is not at fault, but some of us on this side of
the Pacific are ... ]

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-committers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2002-01-11 05:18:50
Subject: Re: pgsql/src/interfaces/odbc/windev README.txt bi ...
Previous:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2002-01-11 04:42:54
Subject: Re: pgsql/src/interfaces/odbc/windev README.txt bi ...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group