On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <z...@cybertec.at> wrote: > Michael Meskes írta: >> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 01:15:58PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: >> >>>> What's the point of that? It can't be applied without documentation, >>>> and it just makes life more complicated to have two separate patch >>>> files floating around. >>>> >>> It's easier to write the documentation for all changes at once. >>> I would have the same situation that happened with the code, >>> the patches with the documentation added would strictly depend >>> on each other again. Also, Michael Meskes applied the "string" >>> pseudo-type patch without the documentation, despite the patch >>> had it, maybe at an improper place. With a tongue-in-cheek >>> >> >> I don't get it. Are you blaming me for committing you patch although it had >> no >> documentation? > > No blaming, but sorry, it definitely had, in both these rounds > of split-up ECPG patchsets: > > 2009-05-15: > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4a5e0f1d.7030...@cybertec.at > 2009-08-03: > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4a770c7b.1060...@cybertec.at > > I assumed you have applied it from the second mail, this was > the last version sent for the "string" patch. It is my fault that > I haven't put it on the CommitFest page. Indeed, the version > on the CF page doesn't have documentation. But the code you > committed seems to be the one (or very close, with some > editorialization) in the second mail quoted above.
Since it doesn't seem that any of the patches are going to get committed RSN, I have moved all of the open ECPG patches to the next CommitFest and given them their own section. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers