Re: Review of "SQLDA support for ECPG"

On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 01:15:58PM +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> > What's the point of that? It can't be applied without documentation,
> > and it just makes life more complicated to have two separate patch
> > files floating around.
> It's easier to write the documentation for all changes at once.
> I would have the same situation that happened with the code,
> the patches with the documentation added would strictly depend
> on each other again. Also, Michael Meskes applied the "string"
> pseudo-type patch without the documentation, despite the patch
> had it, maybe at an improper place. With a tongue-in-cheek

I don't get it. Are you blaming me for committing you patch although it had no
documentation? Or for not committing the documentation part of it? I definitely
did not remove anything on purpose. But if I missed something a short note
would have been a better way to tell me. If the first interpretation is right I
better not comment.

Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org)
Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo/Skype: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes(at)jabber(dot)org
Go VfL Borussia! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!