Thread: Re: RE: [PATCHES] Re: [HACKERS] 6.2 protocol
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > I can put it back. You want it back? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > ISTM discussion is needed before the change. > > > > I'm with Bruce on this (sorry Hiroshi :-)): > > > > 1) Surely if anyone is still using 6.3 or 6.2 they will probably not be > > wanting to keep their ODBC driver cutting edge whilst using such an old > > backend. > > I think Hiroshi's complaint was that it should be discussed more. > Seems we have discussed it, and most agree on the removal. > Hmm I think you are not walking a proper 'discussion first' process in the first place. You committed the removal 7 hours after you had posted the first mail of this thread. Is it sufficient ? Regards, Hiroshi Inoue
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Hiroshi Inoue wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > I can put it back. You want it back? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > ISTM discussion is needed before the change. > > > > > > I'm with Bruce on this (sorry Hiroshi :-)): > > > > > > 1) Surely if anyone is still using 6.3 or 6.2 they will probably not be > > > wanting to keep their ODBC driver cutting edge whilst using such an old > > > backend. > > > > I think Hiroshi's complaint was that it should be discussed more. > > Seems we have discussed it, and most agree on the removal. > > > > Hmm I think you are not walking a proper 'discussion first' > process in the first place. You committed the removal 7 hours > after you had posted the first mail of this thread. > Is it sufficient ? Nope, a *discussion* should go for *at least* 24 hrs after the first post in the discussion ... then again, similar rules should apply before applying any patches in the first place ... *roll eyes*
> > > I think Hiroshi's complaint was that it should be discussed more. > > > Seems we have discussed it, and most agree on the removal. > > > > > > > Hmm I think you are not walking a proper 'discussion first' > > process in the first place. You committed the removal 7 hours > > after you had posted the first mail of this thread. > > Is it sufficient ? > > Nope, a *discussion* should go for *at least* 24 hrs after the first post > in the discussion ... then again, similar rules should apply before > applying any patches in the first place ... *roll eyes* Removal seemed to obvious to discuss, I guess, and when I got on OK, I was on my way. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > I think Hiroshi's complaint was that it should be discussed more. > > > > Seems we have discussed it, and most agree on the removal. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm I think you are not walking a proper 'discussion first' > > > process in the first place. You committed the removal 7 hours > > > after you had posted the first mail of this thread. > > > Is it sufficient ? > > > > Nope, a *discussion* should go for *at least* 24 hrs after the first post > > in the discussion ... then again, similar rules should apply before > > applying any patches in the first place ... *roll eyes* > > Removal seemed to obvious to discuss, I guess, and when I got on OK, I > was on my way. Since you obvious had to have had some sort of discussion and approval (especially after all that you and I have discussed) for the original patch, a similar discussion and approval should have been attained for removing it ... someone had to have liked the original patch to have given you the go-ahead on it, right?
> > Removal seemed to obvious to discuss, I guess, and when I got on OK, I > > was on my way. > > Since you obvious had to have had some sort of discussion and approval > (especially after all that you and I have discussed) for the original > patch, a similar discussion and approval should have been attained for > removing it ... someone had to have liked the original patch to have given > you the go-ahead on it, right? I am confused. The Hiroshi point was the <=6.3 compatibility code removal. That was never submitted as a patch. If you are referring to that one, it was added back in the 6.4 days, I guess, but obviously has little use now that we are on 7.1. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
How feasible is it to break the two drivers separate and put the driver and code with 6.3 and back under "quarantine". People can still get it if they need to, but it is no longer being supported. I am not sure how much that confuses things. Adam Lang Systems Engineer Rutgers Casualty Insurance Company http://www.rutgersinsurance.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> To: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy@hub.org> Cc: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>; "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>; "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>; "PostgreSQL odbc list" <pgsql-odbc@postgresql.org> Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 9:02 PM Subject: Re: RE: [PATCHES] Re: [HACKERS] 6.2 protocol > > > Removal seemed to obvious to discuss, I guess, and when I got on OK, I > > > was on my way. > > > > Since you obvious had to have had some sort of discussion and approval > > (especially after all that you and I have discussed) for the original > > patch, a similar discussion and approval should have been attained for > > removing it ... someone had to have liked the original patch to have given > > you the go-ahead on it, right? > > I am confused. The Hiroshi point was the <=6.3 compatibility code > removal. That was never submitted as a patch. If you are referring to > that one, it was added back in the 6.4 days, I guess, but obviously has > little use now that we are on 7.1. > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue > + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Removal seemed to obvious to discuss, I guess, and when I got on OK, I > > > was on my way. > > > > Since you obvious had to have had some sort of discussion and approval > > (especially after all that you and I have discussed) for the original > > patch, a similar discussion and approval should have been attained for > > removing it ... someone had to have liked the original patch to have given > > you the go-ahead on it, right? > > I am confused. The Hiroshi point was the <=6.3 compatibility code > removal. That was never submitted as a patch. If you are referring to > that one, it was added back in the 6.4 days, I guess, but obviously has > little use now that we are on 7.1. > Please tell me how long I could be away from key board. Regards, Hiroshi Inoue