db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Army <qoz...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: Planning for a 10.1 release
Date Wed, 25 May 2005 01:29:30 GMT
Andrew McIntyre wrote:

> If Army doesn't think his code is going to be production-quality in the
> timeframe of the release we're currently discussing, I think it should
> be left out, even if it were to be undocumented.

I should clarify.  The reason I was thinking that this should not be documented 
as "official" yet is because the work I've done is based on _working__drafts_ of 
the SQL/XML syntax--which means we run the risk of the syntax changing in the 
near future.

It's not that I'm doubting the "production quality" of what I've done--I think 
what I've written is in good shape and I have spent time creating tests that are 
thorough enough to make me believe my patch is Derby quality.  There is, I 
admit, one outstanding issue that I still need to investigate further, but 
that's something I plan to look at after posting the intial patch, so that the 
review process can carry on while I look at the issue (more on that one issue is 
coming with the patch).

In re-reading my last email, I see that that wasn't clear--so I'm sorry for the 
confusion.  Yes, I think my patch (to be posted soon) is good enough quality to 
be in the 10.1 release; my concern is simply in regard to documenting the XML 
syntax one way and then changing it when the SQL/XML specs are formalized.

Army



Mime
View raw message