On Sat, 11 May 2002, Bartus Levente wrote:
> On 2002.05.11 20:27 Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 May 2002, Bartus Levente wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > problem. This is why I started to make patches to this project.
> > > Sorry but I can't wait for the next pgsql release to have this
> > > patches included in the package.
> >
> > Uhoh, now we have a problem, unless your version is going to form the
> > initial repository or there's little or no impact across the
> > preexisting code.
>
> [snip]
>
> Sorry, but I cannot understand your last sentence. Could you explain to
> me, please?
All I mean is that if your patches are making major changes to the majority of
the files making up pgaccess and that the new CVS repository is going to be
initialised from a version that does not have your patches _and_ that this
initial version has been patched by others then there is possibly going to be a
lot of work to bring your patches into CVS. On the hand I suppose this could
just be viewed as the normal problem of merging patches so I'm inclined to not
worry. However, if people are working on pgaccess at the moment then
it is a good idea that their work is applied to pgaccess in the postgres tree
so everyone else can get their hands on it while we wait for the new CVS.
I am assuming here that there is a new CVS repository coming along for
pgaccess, that it will be initialised with the code from the postgres tree [and
that pgaccess in the postgres tree will be synchronised frequently].
> I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, I just want to help this
> software to be better, nothing more.
Mine aren't hurt :)
--
Nigel J. Andrews
Director
---
Logictree Systems Limited
Computer Consultants