At the risk of throwing gasoline on a fire... I didn't react badly to Rod's original post. Yes, it could have been worded more diplomatically, but why so thin-skinned about it? He reported some issues. The response was that they weren't issues. Can you see how that might be construed as unhelpful?
As for: "You see, the fact is that most people ported their applications from SQLite2 to SQLite3 back in 2004." while that may very well be true, it sure didn't help Rod, did it? What he asked for was a migration guide (actually, he just asked for some clarifying language in the documentation). Just because most people don't need a migration guide because they already ported doesn't mean that a user who hasn't ported doesn't need a migration guide. That's arguing from the specific to the general, one of the classic logical fallicies. ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. Richard Hipp" <d...@hwaci.com> To: "General Discussion of SQLite Database" <sqlite-users@sqlite.org> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:05 AM Subject: Re: [sqlite] Problems encountered on upgrade from SQLite2 to -3 > > On Sep 3, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Rod Dav4is wrote: > >> *re applied affinity:* If that is what is meant, then the >> document >> should say it, instead of leaving it to the reader's imagination. >> Since column typing was superfluous in version2, it seems that >> the >> version3 adoption of typing, as defined, would perhaps be an >> upgrade >> compatibility issue, no? > > > I might be wrong, but I'm guessing you'll find the people here will > help you more if you take the chip off of your shoulder and ask > nicely. > > You see, the fact is that most people ported their applications from > SQLite2 to SQLite3 back in 2004. A dare say that most current > readers > of this mailing list didn't discover SQLite until after SQLite3 was > already well established, and hence have no memory of what SQLite2 > did > or how it was different from SQLite3. So porting from SQLite2 to > SQLite3 is not a topic that is a high priority to people here. And > hence, they tend to respond unsupportively when addressing a > complaint > by a user who is clearly miffed that SQLite3 does not work exactly > the > way SQLite2 used to work. > > I suggest a do-over. > > Rod, I suggest you re-register for this mailing list under a > different > name, then log on and send a request that is worded something like > this: > > "Hi! I'm porting an older application from SQLite2 to SQLite3 > and > am running into a couple of compatibility issues. [explain the two > problems here.] Can somebody suggest ways of either (1) getting > SQLite3 to work more like SQLite2 used to work, or (2) how I can > change my code to work the way SQLite3 expects? Thanks!" > > Note that the sample request in the previous paragraph does not > contain an impatient claim that SQLite3 is broken and needs fixing. > And in particular, it does not contain such a claim coming from > someone who does not understand how SQLite3 works. > > I think if you try my do-over suggestion you will find the people > here > will be nice, friendly, and much, much more helpful. > > D. Richard Hipp > d...@hwaci.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
