Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > From a PgSQL Project standpoint, pgaccess has always been included as a
> > way of increasing the overall distribution of the package as a valid GUI
> > interface ... all that has ever happened in the past is that when a new
> > release came out from Teo, Bruce has generally downloaded it and replaced
> > what we had in CVS ... there were no patches involved ... I don't see why
> > that has to change, does it?
>
> Ideally I think there should be only one master CVS copy of pgaccess ---
> either that should be the one in the postgresql.org tree, or we should
> remove pgaccess from postgresql.org and let it become a standalone
> project with its own CVS someplace else. I know that right now, there
> are some changes in the postgresql.org tree that are not in Teo's tree,
> because I made some 7.2 fixes there last summer (having forgotten that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> our sources were not the master copy). This is not good, but it'll
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> keep happening if there are multiple CVS trees.
[ Just catching up.]
Actually, the PostgreSQL CVS tree is the master pgacces source since Teo
stopped working on it. I used to pass patches back to him but at one
point he told me that we should maintian the master copy.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
