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

Reply via email to