The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
>
> > My take on the previous discussions were that a great number of
> > objections were resolved. Am I supposed to just sit on my bum waiting
> > for people who havn't even used an ODBMS to argue for a few years? I'm
> > quite willing to talk this all through again but it needs to reach
> > closure at some point.
>
> Nope, my take on things is that your patch does things that would break
> existing functionality,
IMHO it actually _fixes_ existing broken functionality .
> which won't be permitted without one helluva good explanation ...
Yes, that was The Hermit Hacker I fearfully referred to as misusing even
the current "OO" functionality when I warned people not to promote using
any half-baked OO features developers have forgot into PostgreSQL when they
converted a cool ORDBMS into a generlly usable (non-O)RDBMS.
It may be time to fork the tree into OO and beancounting editions ?
Especially so if the main tree will migrate to BDB ;-p
OOPostgreSQL sounds quite nice ;)
> > This is the third time I've submitted the patch and you examined it in
> > detail last two times. This is just a post-7.0 merge and I was expecting
> > it put in CVS now that 7.0 is done.
>
> That won't happen ... v7.1, if you can get agreement, but not in the
> current CVS tree ...
From where must he get that agreement ?
---------------
Hannu
