Re: more i18n/l10n issues

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 29 September 2003 01:28
> To: Alvaro Herrera
> Cc: Peter Eisentraut; Hackers
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] more i18n/l10n issues
>
>
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> > If you put it that way :-) I'll leave it alone. I hope it can be
> > enhanced in the next release. I'm not sure of it
> usefulness anyway;
> > the documentation seems good enough.
>
> Some guys at Red Hat wanted it to support an admin tool that
> should see the light of day Real Soon Now. Peter's right
> that it could be improved though; in particular I would not
> care to defend its i18n behavior. I've left it undocumented
> partly because I figure we'll be changing it.

Hi Guys,

I find this a little worrying because if we want a feature or tweak for
pgAdmin we usually have to fight tooth & nail to justify getting it
committed (which is not a bad thing), however 'some guys at Red Hat' are
getting switches added to the postmaster without any discussion? I
realise they pay the wages of at least one of the developers many of us
depend on, but surely they should have to justify their modifications as
the rest of us do?

Regards, Dave.