Jacques,
that's a great comment! You've made me smile, thanks.
Jacopo
Jacques Le Roux wrote:
Just one word :
Please "-*DON ' T*_ use absolute pathes in your diff/patches but relative to
root"
Jacques
Just one word :
Please "-*DON ' T*_ use absolute pathes in your diff/patches but relative to
root"
Jacques
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Sykes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r502824
-/o
Please please guys, just drop this,
I'm sure none of us who are having to delete all this nonsense really
care.
- Andrew
On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 06:56 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
> Tim, Jacopo,
>
> Well, since you put this in the open, I guess I might as well re-examine my
> previous pos
Tim, Jacopo,
Well, since you put this in the open, I guess I might as well re-examine my
previous posts.
In Jacopo's case, it all did start out with me appreciating his help. In one of my first posts, I
made the mistake of recalling that it was Jacopo who corrected me on the "please use absolu
Jonathon as an innocent bystander, all I can say is that with every
word you type you are rubbing people the wrong way. Please just take
a moment to read thru your posts before hitting send - and think
about the fact that there are tons of people here from different
backgrounds who are pus
Jacopo,
No, I'm not trolling. Are you?
If you meant the last concise post to you, it's because I know you're really really busy. Just a
sincere effort to cut down on "extras" in my writing to you.
If you meant my comment on David's and Si Chen's discussion, like I said, you better re-read for
Jonathon,
are you trolling?
Jacopo
Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
Er, Jacopo. Maybe I moved your cheese some time, I don't know. If so,
sorry!
Since you like conciseness, please re-read this thread between David and
Si Chen.
As for incorrect information, re-read my previous posts.
Jonathon
Er, Jacopo. Maybe I moved your cheese some time, I don't know. If so, sorry!
Since you like conciseness, please re-read this thread between David and Si
Chen.
As for incorrect information, re-read my previous posts.
Jonathon
Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
Si Chen,
I wa
Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
Si Chen,
I wasn't "saying" anything.
I think that this is the problem with many of your (and with those of
some new guys that recently are around in these lists) posts, Jonathon:
you say nothing with too many words, and this is confusing, especially
for new users
Si Chen,
> You're welcome to have and express whatever opinion you wish, but what
> you are saying is not true.
I wasn't "saying" anything. I was observing the fact that it seemed there was gonna be a change to
something core. I've not known "+/-" to be a standard SQL notation, and quickly assu
Jonathon -- Improov wrote:
David, Si Chen,
Just to let you know my impression as an observer of this thread.
I was shocked to read "the +/- notation does not work well with
PostgreSQL". Was bracing myself for a tidal wave of a change in the
OFBiz framework.
Jonathon
David E. Jones wrote:
David, Si Chen,
Just to let you know my impression as an observer of this thread.
I was shocked to read "the +/- notation does not work well with PostgreSQL". Was bracing myself
for a tidal wave of a change in the OFBiz framework.
Jonathon
David E. Jones wrote:
On Feb 5, 2007, at 10:16 AM,
David E. Jones wrote:
On Feb 5, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Si Chen wrote:
David E. Jones wrote:
Hold on a minute there did you actually test and find this to be
a problem? The +/- notation is an entity engine ONLY thing and
should never make it to the database.
This patch should be reverted
On Feb 5, 2007, at 10:16 AM, Si Chen wrote:
David E. Jones wrote:
Hold on a minute there did you actually test and find this to
be a problem? The +/- notation is an entity engine ONLY thing and
should never make it to the database.
This patch should be reverted and if +/- are making
David E. Jones wrote:
Hold on a minute there did you actually test and find this to be a
problem? The +/- notation is an entity engine ONLY thing and should
never make it to the database.
This patch should be reverted and if +/- are making it to the database
instead of being replaced wi
Why change it then? Why put the effort into it, and then require
corresponding review effort?
Why comment "the +/- notation does not work well with PostgreSQL"?
Either way I don't care a lot, as long as it's clear what is being
fixed and what is just being changed because "I like my way be
Hi David,
I was involved in fixing this issue. There was a genuine bug where the
inventory reservation with FIFO method was ordered the wrong way, causing it to
behave like LIFO. This commit fixes the issue by reversing the order for the
FIFO case so it works correctly.
So unless you want
Hold on a minute there did you actually test and find this to be
a problem? The +/- notation is an entity engine ONLY thing and should
never make it to the database.
This patch should be reverted and if +/- are making it to the
database instead of being replaced with an ASC/DESC by th
18 matches
Mail list logo
