On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>> The two features are highly intermix, so it can only be dependent patches,
>>> first to add a function infrastructure and probably some support for doubles
>>> altough it would not be used, then to add doubles & their functions.
>>>
>>> A real pain is the documentation, because it means writing a documentation
>>> with only integer functions, then overwriting it with doubles. This is dumb
>>> work, really, for the sake of "a cleaner git history", the beauty of it no
>>> one will ever contemplate...
>>
>> FWIW, I care a lot about splitting as much as possible patches where
>> it is possible to have a clean history. So I would be fine to do a
>> portion of the legwork and extract from this patch something smaller
>> that adds only functions as a first step, with the minimum set of
>> functions I mentioned upthread. Robert, Alvaro, Fabien, does that
>> sound fine to you?
>
> I'd be delighted. I would really like to get this feature in, but I'm
> not going to do it if it requires an unreasonable amount of work on my
> part - and what you propose would help a lot.
OK, I'll see about producing a patch then for this basic
infrastructure, with the rest built on top of it as a secondary patch.
--
Michael
