| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: more i18n/l10n issues |
| Date: | 2003-09-29 08:03:09 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0309290959320.22870-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page writes:
> I find this a little worrying because if we want a feature or tweak for
> pgAdmin we usually have to fight tooth & nail to justify getting it
> committed (which is not a bad thing), however 'some guys at Red Hat' are
> getting switches added to the postmaster without any discussion?
It was not a nice thing to do.
Could whoever is responsible for this admin tool at Red Hat please specify
exactly what data they need out of this interface, so we have a chance to
make the interface a little more future-proof now and possibly remove some
of the unneeded clutter that is giving translators problems? Surely that
would be in everyone's interest, because if we're already set on changing
the feature again pretty soon, it won't do that admin tool much good.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-09-29 08:07:57 | Re: pg_dump no longer honors --no-reconnect |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2003-09-29 07:29:50 | Re: more i18n/l10n issues |