On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 7:15 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <z...@cybertec.at> wrote: > 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 > "no comment" ;-) I point to this paragraph in the ECPG part of > the documentation: > > "This documentation is quite incomplete. But since this interface is > standardized, > additional information can be found in many resources about SQL."
OK, maybe I was overly optimistic. :-( At least for parts of PostgreSQL other than ECPG, it is our usual practice to require documentation to be submitted with the patch. I have not looked at your patches and am not familiar with ECPG, but I wonder if part of the issue here is that there are too many interrelated changes. Maybe you'd be better off submitting some smaller changes, wait to see how they get committed, and then move on to the next thing. On the other hand, given that Michael seems to have no time to review ECPG patches or provide feedback, and given that none of the other committers seem to want to touch this with a ten-foot-pole, maybe that would make this take forever. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
