| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, "Lamar Owen" <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "mlw" <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, "Iavor Raytchev" <iavor(dot)raytchev(at)verysmall(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Discontent with development process (was:Re: pgaccess |
| Date: | 2002-05-14 04:26:01 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOCEJICCAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-interfaces |
> Actually, even for those that wuldn't need the patch ... as long as the
> "default behaviour" doesn't change, and unless there are no valid
> technical arguments around it, there is no reason why a patch shouldn't be
> included ...
Unless it's going to interfere with implementing the general case in the
future, making it a painful feature to keep backwards-compatibility with.
Which is what the discussion was about IIRC...
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Oliver Elphick | 2002-05-14 05:58:41 | Re: pg_dump DROP commands and implicit search paths |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-05-14 04:13:28 | Re: Discontent with development process (was:Re: pgaccess |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Denis CARTIER-MILLON | 2002-05-14 07:30:56 | Re: libpq and borland c++ 5...... |
| Previous Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2002-05-14 04:13:28 | Re: Discontent with development process (was:Re: pgaccess |