> The additional maintenance load for me to carry the patch is not the point - I'm not sure what I said that gave that impression. That's the standard reason to upstream a patch. Part of the reason I assumed you didn't want to carry the maintenance burden any more is that you've repeated your wish for SQLite to adopt this change. How is that not saying, "We don't want to carry this patch any more"? (Rhetorical. Just explaining my thought process.) > offering potential changes would have provoked this of reaction Since you're replying to me, I've got to say that you sound hurt and offended yourself, but I've re-read my reply, and I don't see how you get that. My reply can be distilled into two major points, purely factual: 1. The IP organization behind SQLite can't legally accept it even if they thought it was the most awesome feature in the history of software development. 2. Even with the legal issues aside, drh has to *want* to accept it, which he covers well in his reply to you.