db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Army <qoz...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Derby-107, Phase I
Date Wed, 16 Feb 2005 22:32:20 GMT
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Army wrote:
> 
>>Should it be max VARCHAR length _just_ for the "getProcedures" query,
>>which is the only one that seems to actually return a value, or should I
>>use the max VARCHAR length for the queries that return an emtpy REMARKS
>>string (''), as well, for consistency?
> 
> I think the empty hardcoded remarks ('') could remain as varchar(128).
> 
> Dan.

I have made this single change and recreated the patch.  Please find the patch attached.

Note that, because of this change, if anyone applies this new patch, and then applies the
Phase II patch that I 
submitted earlier this week, s/he will see the following lines when patching:

Hunk #1 succeeded at 116 (offset 4 lines).
Hunk #3 succeeded at 535 (offset 4 lines).
Hunk #5 succeeded at 769 (offset 4 lines).
Hunk #7 succeeded at 868 (offset 4 lines).

The Phase II patch still succeeds, but because of the above messages, it creates a metadata.properties.orig
file in the 
process.  Then, when one tries to apply the Phase III patch, it wants to do the same thing.
 That means that, in order 
for the Phase III patch to work, the user must first delete the "metadata.properties.orig"
file created by the Phase II 
patch.

This is one of the downfalls to incremental patches, I guess.  If people want, I could go
and re-create the Phase II and 
Phase III patches based on the new Phase I patch, to avoid these issues. Might be best to
wait, though, until the Phase 
II and Phase III patches have been reviewed...(?)

Army

Mime
View raw message