On 21.12.2012 21:43, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 21 December 2012 19:35, Bruce Momjian<bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
>>> It's not too complex. You just want that to be true. The original
>>> developer has actually literally gone away, but not because of this.
>>
>> Well, Robert and I remember it differently.
>>
>> Anyway, I will ask for a vote now.
>
> And what will you ask for a vote on? Why not spend that effort on
> solving the problem? Why is it OK to waste so much time?
>
> Having already explained how to do this, I'll add backwards
> compatibility within 1 day of the commit of the patch you claim was
> blocked by this. I think it will take me about an hour and not be very
> invasive, just to prove what a load of hot air is being produced here.
I haven't been following this.. Could you two post a link to the patch
we're talking about, and the explanation of how to add backwards
compatibility to it?
Just by looking at the last few posts, this seems like a no brainer. The
impression I get is that there's a patch that's otherwise ready to be
applied, but Simon and some others want to have backwards-compatiblity
added to it first. And Simon has a plan on how to do it, and can do it
in one day. The obvious solution is that Simon posts the patch, with the
backwards-compatibility added. We can then discuss that, and assuming no
surprises there, commit it. And everyone lives happily ever after.
- Heikki
