Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-empire-db-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: (qmail 19280 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2010 21:21:19 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Jan 2010 21:21:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 85088 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jan 2010 21:21:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-empire-db-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 85066 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jan 2010 21:21:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact empire-db-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: empire-db-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list empire-db-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 85056 invoked by uid 99); 8 Jan 2010 21:21:19 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:21:19 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mckinley1411@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.220 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.219.220] (HELO mail-ew0-f220.google.com) (209.85.219.220) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 21:21:11 +0000 Received: by ewy20 with SMTP id 20so8873232ewy.20 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:20:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=d//gOHLTdUMQ4hhHAx2zxA6JbNo46PMQ0UtUCQp1z/8=; b=ZXX4mixlt4LzpyWdrTED6f3lrvNJr7TqembkBAGxRv8/q9FQvCMkvvTZB77I0C/R2a 9X90yPeOovN7dKtVli03EqjqZIVnafjsCk7K1qLw4sIjKmGbjEONXJBMkD9HtxCYYZPJ MQcJFialXhF/T9idirtP6vqmzMMGOymFM975g= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=o4yabrsTF5TKYP8f947kSbvsi8vWZCuqtSg78XjaO0XEnuAB/dqlPLGDFsn11fNI9i RW2ZpG1/wQWsWYTIC2nsxC05CLyU5ZqMm4KoKiHErj1dMKmU0B3GWYA03yEBTLj0eCiD NYqA6p+wgRhSOgTMPz6rTUyUQ4YTLJAeQtKtY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.110.206 with SMTP id o14mr3120942ebp.6.1262985651678; Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:20:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <3ab983231001081251o111e97e5y84f94a0b9b9436dc@mail.gmail.com> References: <3ab983231001081251o111e97e5y84f94a0b9b9436dc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 21:20:51 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Introduction and I submitted my first patch to Empire-db codegen From: McKinley To: empire-db-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I am looking at the changes to codegen from yesterday and they need to be reconciled with my patch which I started the day before yesterday. Should I reconcile those changes and attach a new patch or will it be best to let the Empire-db team reconcile? Thanks, McKinley On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Francis De Brabandere wrote: > Hi McKinley, > > Just a quick reply to let you know we'll have a look at your patch. We > really appreciate user feedback and it seems you know a lot about > database-specific differences. Further the empire-db codegen was > really a good addition to the framework. > > The new year brought us quite some activity in the community :-) > > Cheers, > Francis