Re: Configurable Penalty Costs for Levenshtein

On Thu, 03 Apr 2008, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Volkan YAZICI <yazicivo@ttmail.com> writes:
>> Sorry for the delay, but the reply of Tom didn't reach me. I've modified
>> the patch according to Tom's comments. I hope I am not too late.
>
> Applied after considerable revision.  This patch:
>
> * introduced a memory stomp that was not there before (I strongly
>   recommend testing C code in an --enable-cassert build)
> * added a user-visible feature without documenting it
> * undid a conflicting patch that had been applied since your first version
> * removed a number of useful comments from the code
>
> I cleaned it up and applied anyway, but generally we expect a higher
> quality standard for patches that are claimed to be ready to apply.

Thanks so much for your kindness. Please don't hesistate to reject the
patch next time by dropping me an email with the above lines mentioning
about your considerations, and I'll happily fix it at my best and resend
it. I don't want to interrupt your work with such trivial stuff.


Regards.