> * Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | This issue came up recently in relation to backpatching a python fix,
> | and the conclusion was that jdbc 7.1.X is "a hopeless cause" and I tend
> | to agree. I had >6 unapplied jdbc patches at the time we released 7.1.
> | They are all now in
Quoting Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > IIRC, at one time ODBC *was* a separate project, and we decided that
> > that wasn't working too well. Anyone recall the reasons we pulled it
> > into the main CVS tree? Wouldn't do to make the same mistakes
> twice...
>
>
Tom Lane writes:
> IIRC, at one time ODBC *was* a separate project, and we decided that
> that wasn't working too well. Anyone recall the reasons we pulled it
> into the main CVS tree? Wouldn't do to make the same mistakes twice...
The ODBC driver was created by someone else (Insight something
* Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| This issue came up recently in relation to backpatching a python fix,
| and the conclusion was that jdbc 7.1.X is "a hopeless cause" and I tend
| to agree. I had >6 unapplied jdbc patches at the time we released 7.1.
| They are all now in CVS.
> I'v
* Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > release cycles of the core engine from the interfaces. Make them separate
| > projects.
|
| We have sort of done that now by pushing everyone to the CVS version.
;-) I know. The problem is that I wouldn't trust a CVS version of the JDBC
driver
>> I've mentioned it before, but I really think it would nice to decouple the
>> release cycles of the core engine from the interfaces. Make them separate
>> projects.
> We have sort of done that now by pushing everyone to the CVS version.
This makes some sense to me for ODBC and JDBC, which
* Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| This issue came up recently in relation to backpatching a python fix,
| and the conclusion was that jdbc 7.1.X is "a hopeless cause" and I tend
| to agree. I had >6 unapplied jdbc patches at the time we released 7.1.
| They are all now in CVS.
I've
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> I guess my question is, when I submitted the patches after 7.1.2 was released,
> I was hoping they would be in the next release, 7.1.3 Is there a way for my
> patches to make it into the next release, which I assume is 7.2? Or, is the
> current source-tree geare
Ned Wolpert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (You patched this about two months ago.) Specifically, the 1.11 version of
> jdbc2/PreparedStatment.java file has the patch, but the 7.1.3 released does
> not. How do we propragate patches into the main branch for releasing?
At this point, we don't; it'
Ned Wolpert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess my question is, when I submitted the patches after 7.1.2 was
> released, I was hoping they would be in the next release, 7.1.3
No, they went into current development sources, 7.2-to-be. At this
point 7.1.* is a maintenance branch, and is only cha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I guess my question is, when I submitted the patches after 7.1.2 was released,
I was hoping they would be in the next release, 7.1.3 Is there a way for my
patches to make it into the next release, which I assume is 7.2? Or, is the
current source-tre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bruce-
I checked the 7.1.3 release, and this patch isn't there... but it is in CVS.
(You patched this about two months ago.) Specifically, the 1.11 version of
jdbc2/PreparedStatment.java file has the patch, but the 7.1.3 released does
not. How do
12 matches
Mail list logo
