Hello Simon,
On 07/17/2010 12:30 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> The code itself merely reflects your design, so what I would really like
> to see is a full explanation of this.
Are the descriptive mails I sent for each patch going into the right
direction and just need to be extended, in your opinion? Or are you
really missing something in there?
It's easier to answer more specific questions.
> If the generalisation is to be
> accepted we need a very clear explanation of how it works and details of
> the API since that is what's needed to allow other people besides
> yourself to begin using it for patches in 9.1.
Understood.
> If we can see the docs on that SGML/README form then we'll be able to
> more quickly agree how to proceed. After that, reviewing your patch
> against that design will be easy/ier.
I don't think SGML makes much sense, as there are not many user visible
changes that need to go into the manual (except for the GUCs, those
certainly require to be mentioned in the manual).
If you agree, I'd add the currently sent descriptions to README files in
the source.
I think that I commented the source code pretty extensively, however,
that's a subjective feeling.
I'm under the impression, that I commented the source code pretty well.
> Let's go for this in stages. If we can get something basic and useful
> for lots of people in this commitfest, we can layer on the other stuff
> later.
>
