Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 89510 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2008 00:01:36 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2008 00:01:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 63112 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2008 00:01:38 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 63047 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jun 2008 00:01:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 63036 invoked by uid 99); 3 Jun 2008 00:01:38 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:01:38 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bojan@rexursive.com designates 203.171.74.242 as permitted sender) Received: from [203.171.74.242] (HELO beauty.rexursive.com) (203.171.74.242) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:00:44 +0000 Received: from [10.1.120.24] (shrek.rexursive.com [10.1.120.24]) by beauty.rexursive.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 305F14C0099 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:01:05 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: svn commit: r662530 - /apr/apr-util/branches/1.3.x/Makefile.win From: Bojan Smojver To: APR Development List In-Reply-To: <4844874C.8080805@rowe-clan.net> References: <20080602193126.19DE62388A1B@eris.apache.org> <1212441526.14224.14.camel@shrek.rexursive.com> <4844761E.5010009@rowe-clan.net> <1212449132.14224.36.camel@shrek.rexursive.com> <4844874C.8080805@rowe-clan.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:01:02 +1000 Message-Id: <1212451262.14224.44.camel@shrek.rexursive.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.2 (2.22.2-1.fc9) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 18:50 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Please feel free! Such things are easily forgotten later on. OK. > That patch is fine. And yes - it's worth debating how to communicate > the notice information from the engines (first question; how do these > correspond to other SQL clients?) Absolutely no idea. This thing may be PostgreSQL specific, actually. Will check. > Agreed, I'd appreciate his vote. But not for the -1 he cast earlier, we > resolved his objections to his satisfaction long before the tag. Yes, I've seen that. Still (me being paranoid and all), it would be great getting a confirmation that all is well... -- Bojan