Bruce Momjian wrote:
> D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > In fact I wrote it because I do want it for ReST. When I first
> > proposed it that was my sell. I received pushback because it was for
> > too specific a purpose so I stepped back and showed that it was simply
> > a logical extension that happened to work as ReST input. Now it seems
> > that unless it is 100% ReST and documented as such it will be rejected.
> >
> > I'm feeling the ground shift under me.
>
> Can you find an email that shows this; I don't remember a shift.
I'm surprised that you find this surprising. It happens all the time.
People change their mind, or they forget the decision they took last
time and take the opposite one later. Tom said that he didn't see a
value in rst:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/27079.1219365411%40sss.pgh.pa.us
Andrew supported this view. However, their arguments were debunked.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
