Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> > > (1) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 17:36:55 +0200 (CEST)
> > > Subject: [PATCHES] aclitem accessor functions
> >
> > I thought Peter didn't like it.
>
> He asked 'why' I needed it. I answered his question.
> He may or may not agree, I don't know!
>
> > Would you repost and we can review it again.
>
> Ok.
>
> > > (2) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:35:57 +0200 (CEST)
> > > Subject: [PATCHES] 'information_schema' considered a system schema
> >
> > I don't remember that one at all. Would you repost?
>
> Ok.
>
> > Basically, what happens on these patches is if someone says there is a
> > problem, and you reply but it isn't clear that the problem is refuted or
> > addressed,
>
> That's what I do, but I can only "argue", not "refute" or "address"
> issues. Whether it is refuted or addressed is in the head of the decider.
I seem to be losing a lot of your patches, so I must be doing something
wrong.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
