Bear Giles <bgiles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> That's for *you*, and were always meant to be temporary. I knew there
> would be about a dozen concurrent patches in play, and this helps
> establish precedence if they don't go in in sequence.
I'm a little uncomfortable with that whole approach to things, and was
intending to suggest that you submit the SSL changes as one big patch.
I feel that this is not letting me see the big picture ... quite aside
from the probability of breakage if patches get applied out-of-order.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
|
