On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Jan Wieck wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > This line bothers me. With multiple people working on Win32, I would
> > > like us to decide how we would _like_ such a port to be implemented. I
> > > think this will assist those working on the project to _know_ that their
> > > work will be accepted if submitted.
> >
> > 1. that is not accurate, as it won't necessarily be accepted if submitted
> > ... its not like years ago when are standards were lax ... Jan is
> > perfectly accurate in his assessment of which will make it in, except for
> > omitting one point ... it has to meet our standards ... so, its more "the
> > first to contribute *and* meet our standards" ...
>
> Omitted point taken :-)
>
> > > What I don't want to happen is two Win32 projects contributing duplicate
> > > code at the same time. It is a waste when they could have combined
> > > their efforts.
> >
> > IMHO, that is actually their problem ... without meaning to sound crass
> > about it, but its not like we haven't discussed it extensively here, and
> > openly ... hell, we've even tried to break down the whole project into
> > smaller components to make the whole easier to merge in :)
>
> The problem with this kind of project is that you have a big stumbling
> block at the beginning, which has to be done before you can rollout and
> integrate the help of developers scattered around the globe. This was
> the case with the foreign key project, where the trigger queue and one
> set of triggers where working, and then Stephan did all the others and I
> forgot who else helped to do the utility commands and CREATE TABLE
> syntax and tried to decrypt the SQL definitions? In the Windows port
Actually, IIRC Don did the triggers, and I did the utility commands/create
stuff, but the point is still the same. (Made in the point of
historical accuracy since I don't want someone else's work to end up
getting attributed to me since that's unfair to them. :) )
