On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:52:17PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 20:24 +0200, Pavel Baros wrote: > > > ... also you can look at enclosed patch. > > No tests == no patch
This isn't quite how I'd have phrased it, and it would be nice if nobody phrased advice quite this way. :) In order for a patch to be accepted, it needs to include both SGML docs if it changes user-visible behavior, and tests for any new behaviors it has created. This is the project standard, and it or something very like it is a good standard for just about any project, as it gives people some ways to test intent vs. effect. Do you want some help with creating same? Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
