Re: 1.16 beta 1 ?

Looks reasonable to me.

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Guillaume Lelarge
<guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 10:32 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
>> <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2012-05-07 at 09:11 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Monday, May 7, 2012, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> >> > Given that it's self contained, and we *do* expect it to get in
>> >> > eventually, how many places would you have to put #ifdef's in to
>> >> leave
>> >> > the code in the main branch and just not have it build there?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Not much. It would be quite easy to do.
>>
>> Then I suggest that path.
>>
>
> See attached patch.
>
>> >> If Guillaume is going to continue to work on the feature, I'd be happy
>> >> with #ifdef's and a configure switch to enable that code.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I want to continue the work on it. But to be completely honest, it isn't
>> > my priority. My priority is to get new releases of pgAdmin with the
>> > biggest support of the new PostgreSQL features.
>>
>> That seems like reasonable priorities. But if it were to decent to the
>> point of being basically "dead code", it shuld be removed.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
>> > I'll work on a patch with the ifdef's. It'll be much less work.
>>
>> Good.
>>
>
> Waiting comments before applying.
>
>
> --
> Guillaume
> http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info
> http://www.dalibo.com

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company