Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 06:42:03PM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
>
>
>>I'm reading some comment on CVS and I seen this comment
>>for tab-complete.c revision 1.109:
>>
>>Fix subtransaction behavior for large objects, temp namespace, files,
>>password/group files. Also allow read-only subtransactions of a read-write
>>parent, but not vice versa. These are the reasonably noncontroversial
>>parts of Alvaro's recent mop-up patch, plus further work on large objects
>>to minimize use of the TopTransactionResourceOwner.
>>
>>but the modification on that file have noting to see with this.
>>
>>Is it normal ?
>
>
> Yeah. I included your tab-complete patch in the patch I sent to
> pgsql-patches, which later Tom reworked and applied. His CVS comment
> didn't mention the tab completion change. This isn't surprising at all,
> as minor changes go uncommented sometimes when they are surrounded by
> bigger changes (like the large object work).
Understood. Why not comment each file separately too much work with CVS?
I do not have experience with CVS ( at work I user Clearcase ) and for my
personal purpose I use subversion ( any plans to migrate the CVS repository
to subversion or even bitkeeper ? ).
Regards
Gaetano Mendola