Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
> > This has been a problem in the past. I'd generally ask that, if a patch
> > which was discussed on -hackers gets rejected on -patches, that discussion
> > be brought back to -hackers. Often the people who supported the original
> > feature are not on
Josh Berkus writes:
> This has been a problem in the past. I'd generally ask that, if a patch
> which was discussed on -hackers gets rejected on -patches, that discussion
> be brought back to -hackers. Often the people who supported the original
> feature are not on -patches and then are unpl
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> >Andrew,
> >
> >>What happened was that Tom objected to (or at least queried the need
> >>for) the patch on the grounds that it was bloat that nobody had asked
> >>for. And when I asked I wasn't exactly deluged with requests to commit,
> >>so I concluded
Josh Berkus wrote:
Andrew,
What happened was that Tom objected to (or at least queried the need
for) the patch on the grounds that it was bloat that nobody had asked
for. And when I asked I wasn't exactly deluged with requests to commit,
so I concluded that it was not generally wanted.
Andrew,
> What happened was that Tom objected to (or at least queried the need
> for) the patch on the grounds that it was bloat that nobody had asked
> for. And when I asked I wasn't exactly deluged with requests to commit,
> so I concluded that it was not generally wanted.
Did you poll on -hack
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Important as you are, "one swallow does not make a summer".
On the other hand, unless we want the lists filling up with a bunch of
+1 posts, it's probably better to assume that unless someone objects a
patch would be accepted.
What happened was that Tom objected
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 12:34:54PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:43:19AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >>OK there does seem to be some demand for this, so I will rework the
> >>patch, and hope to get it done by feature freeze - it has bitrot
David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:43:19AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
OK there does seem to be some demand for this, so I will rework the
patch, and hope to get it done by feature freeze - it has bitrotted
with 7 merge conflicts, including the grammar file, so I need to
look car
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:43:19AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> OK there does seem to be some demand for this, so I will rework the
> patch, and hope to get it done by feature freeze - it has bitrotted
> with 7 merge conflicts, including the grammar file, so I need to
> look carefully at that. P
Josh Berkus wrote:
Tom,
What's the consensus on this? Nobody else has chimed in, so I'm
inclined to do no more on the gounds of insufficient demand. Let's
decide before too much bitrot occurs, though.
+1 :)
+1
We were talking about this on IRC, and I feel that if we'
Tom,
> > > What's the consensus on this? Nobody else has chimed in, so I'm
> > > inclined to do no more on the gounds of insufficient demand. Let's
> > > decide before too much bitrot occurs, though.
> >
> > +1 :)
>
> +1
We were talking about this on IRC, and I feel that if we're going to do "IF
On Saturday 04 March 2006 22:24, David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 03:35:24PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >
> > What's the consensus on this? Nobody else has chimed in, so I'm inclined
> > to do no more on the gounds of ins
12 matches
Mail list logo
