On Mon, 22 Nov 2010, Itagaki Takahiro wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 03:40, Rados?aw Smogura
> <rsmogura@softperience.eu> wrote:
>>> Regarding JDBC in the CF process -- other interfaces are handled
>>> there. I haven't seen one patch this size for JDBC since I've been
>>> involved, let alone two competing patches to implement the same
>>> feature. Small patches which can be quickly handled don't make sense
>>> to put into the process, but it seemed reasonable for these.
>>
>> In any way I'm sending this patch, and I will put this under Miscellaneous in
>> CF. This cleared patch takes only 47k (in uncleared was some binary read
>> classes) and about 50% it's big test case.
>
> I changed the patch's topic to "JDBC".
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=399
>
I don't think it makes sense to try to manage anything other than core
code in the commitfest app. The other patch touched the backend, so it
made sense to put it in the commitfest, but as far as I understand it,
this one is pure Java code. There is a backlog of JDBC issues to deal
with, but I think it needs its own commitfest instead of trying to tack on
to the main project's.
Kris Jurka