Re: Review of "SQLDA support for ECPG"

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 2:09 PM, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> Michael Meskes írta:
>> 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?
>
> No blaming, but sorry, it definitely had, in both these rounds
> of split-up ECPG patchsets:
>
> 2009-05-15:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4A5E0F1D.7030004@cybertec.at
> 2009-08-03:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4A770C7B.1060404@cybertec.at
>
> I assumed you have applied it from the second mail, this was
> the last version sent for the "string" patch. It is my fault that
> I haven't put it on the CommitFest page. Indeed, the version
> on the CF page doesn't have documentation. But the code you
> committed seems to be the one (or very close, with some
> editorialization) in the second mail quoted above.

Since it doesn't seem that any of the patches are going to get
committed RSN, I have moved all of the open ECPG patches to the next
CommitFest and given them their own section.

...Robert