September 2003 2:33 PM
To: POI Developers List
Subject: Re: VOTE: DBCell and Index Record patches on 2.0 branch
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:15:32AM -0700, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> I don't think our problem is this. I think what needs to be done is
someone
> to diff the biffview of a
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 11:15:32AM -0700, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> I don't think our problem is this. I think what needs to be done is someone
> to diff the biffview of a blank sheet versus one poi modifies and see what
> extra records we write. We never used to write these records and it used t
Cool! Thanks. Yeah, we should wait a bit on the Index & DBCell stuff.
---Original Message---
> From: Height, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: VOTE: DBCell and Index Record patches on 2.0 branch
> Sent: 23 Sep 2003 05:41:47
>
> OK As
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 08:27:00 +0930 "Height, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you are in favour of me checking in my changes to the 2.0 branch then +1
> it.
+0 because I cannot say anything about your patches. :-|
Best regards
Rainer Klute
Rainer Klute IT-Consulti
If it brings the 2_branch closer to being stable +1
If it brings it farther from being stable -1
I don't think our problem is this. I think what needs to be done is someone
to diff the biffview of a blank sheet versus one poi modifies and see what
extra records we write. We never used to write t
ng it is way
too complex. I favour a Keep It Simple approach, without sacrificing too
much performance).
Jason
-Original Message-
From: Avik Sengupta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 September 2003 3:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VOTE: DBCell and Index Record patch
My intention on getting this patch to REL_2_BRANCH was the hope that this would fix
some of the blocking bugs for the 2.0 release.. particularly the ExtSST patch.
I wanted to test this hypothesis, but I have found it impossible to apply the patch to
the branch from the CVS generated diff. Even
Hello,
Avik has suggested that my patches to support DBCell and Index records
should go on the 2.0 release branch. As this is fairly new code and a major
chunk of functionality, I thought that we should probably put it to some
sort of vote.
If you are in favour of me checking in my changes
