Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > > (1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST) > > > Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions > > > > I thought Peter didn't like it. > > He asked 'why' I needed it. I answered his question. > He may or may not agree, I don't know! > > > Would you repost and we can review it again. > > Ok. > > > > (2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST) > > > Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema > > > > I don't remember that one at all. Would you repost? > > Ok. > > > Basically, what happens on these patches is if someone says there is a > > problem, and you reply but it isn't clear that the problem is refuted or > > addressed, > > That's what I do, but I can only "argue", not "refute" or "address" > issues. Whether it is refuted or addressed is in the head of the decider.
I seem to be losing a lot of your patches, so I must be doing something wrong. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
