> In our previous episode, Ludo Brands said: > > > > PS: no misunderstanding. I'm volunteering to make these > changes;) > > > > > > > I'd be happy to help with testing at least! > > > > Sorry mate. No reaction. Everybody seems to be happy with > the current > > implementation. Under these circumstances, I'm not going to > spend any > > time on creating a patch that makes a, minor, change to the > interface > > when other, less intrusive, patches for fcl-db are sitting > in mantis > > for months/years without being merged. > > Your remarks really hurt my motivation to look at those > bugreports at all. That and the fact that I spent a holiday > week closing quite some goes unnoticed. >
Marco, all my excuses if you felt my message suggested I was pointing in your direction. I wasn't. I'm a little surprised by you taking this personnally since most of the patches I personnaly submitted and that you dealt with where comitted quickly. And, you don't have to believe me, but I did notice your great efforts last weeks working and catching up on older and new issues. What did trigger my reaction are examples like this: http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=19902 a patch contributed recently to implement ODBC transactions while this patch http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=14944 was submitted in 2009 for the same but never committed. Ludo _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal