Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>
>>I agree with reverting. The tool looks pretty broken anyway, with
>>hardcoded paths and all sorts of stuff quite apart from logic problems.
>>
>>
>
>Well, it's only intended to work on Bruce's system, so until someone
>else takes over the position of chief gruntwork-doer I don't think the
>portability issues are much of a factor.
>
Shouldn't the README reflect that, then?
cheers
andrew
