On 2002.05.11 20:27 Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
>
> [Note, I've changed the headers so everyone on the original
> distribution list
> is getting a copy via Bcc, including -hackers. It was the simplest way
> I could
> think of making certain the discussion moved to -interfaces as Marc
> requested.]
>
>
> On Sat, 11 May 2002, Bartus Levente wrote:
> > ... I think, there is no connection (should not be)
> > between the versions of the pgaccess and the versions of the pgsql.
> > Pgaccess is a visual tool for pgsql, that can be developed freely
> > without having anything to do with the pgsql developement.
>
> Yes.
>
> > So I cannot understand why the majority of the oppinions says that
> > pgaccess should stay in the shadow of the pgsql.
>
> Who said shadow? FWIW, I'd never have bothered about pgaccess, that's
> even I'd
> even known about it, if it hadn't come in the main postgres tree.
>
> > Breaking this tight connection we can help pgaccess to develop as
> fast
> > as it can, and we let free space for other projects to appear. For
> me
> > the first thing is to make my daily job as good and fast as I can.
> And
> > this is much easier with using the best tool for the particular
> > 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.
>
Sure, there is a problem, that's why the whole discussion started. A
software project stalled for at least a year. Why? There is no need for
it? I can hardly beleive.
Sorry, but I cannot understand your last sentence. Could you explain to
me, please?
I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, I just want to help this
software to be better, nothing more.
> --
> Nigel J. Andrews
> Director
>
> ---
> Logictree Systems Limited
> Computer Consultants
>
>
Best regards,
Levi.