X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0435D1D1A4 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 23:01:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [200.46.204.2]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53201-06 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:01:08 -0400 (AST) Received: from smtp.covadmail.net (mx05.covadmail.net [63.65.120.65]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A406BD1BB89 for ; Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:01:04 -0400 (AST) Received: (covad.net 30573 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2004 23:01:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.134?) (hotzoco@Covad.net@69.3.129.101) by sun-qmail10 with SMTP; 21 Feb 2004 23:01:01 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: hotzoco@Covad.net@pop3.covad.net Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 15:01:04 -0800 To: ljb , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org From: "Henry B. Hotz" Subject: Re: Request temporary freeze of libpgtcl chapter in manual Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200402/23 X-Sequence-Number: 2278 At 1:01 AM +0000 2/20/04, ljb wrote: >I would like to request that no changes be made to the libpgtcl >chapter in the PostgreSQL reference manual, at least for the near term, >beyond file revision 1.40 in CVS. Otherwise, I can't promise any changes >you make will end up in my version of the manual, in the event that the >unbundling effort is successful. Is this OK? I'm not contributing, so it's not an issue for me. However isn't the whole point of CVS to make re-merging changes like this easy? -- The opinions expressed in this message are mine, not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government. Henry.B.Hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu