db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: Question about client compatibility testing and DERBY-516 (paging Rick #:))
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:18:33 GMT
Hi  Kathey,

That sounds like a useful combination: 10.1.1.0 client against the 
mainline server, both running on the 1.4 vm. You see a lot of support 
cases and are in a good position to describe the main execution path. I 
don't have a lot of perspective here.

Cheers,
-Rick

Kathey Marsden wrote:

>Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi Kathey,
>>
>>My initial ramblings on this topic start out at the end of August in
>>the email thread "client/server compatibility testing". There I
>>worried that over time, the compatibility tests could grow large
>>(taking maybe 5 minutes per combination) and so, if run for all the
>>combinations, would make derbyall take too long. That's why we're only
>>runing one combination as part of derbyall. That combination doesn't
>>really track a compatibility issue, it just tracks regressions which
>>might creep into the test as other code changes.
>>
>>I'm certainly in favor of running all the combinations on a nightly or
>>weekly basis and as a sanity check when cutting release candidates.
>>
>>    
>>
>It seems that it would be worthwhile to enable the test with the 10.1
>jars (original client release)  as it would make a clear statement of
>the minimum client/server jar combinations that are expected work, would
>probably catch most things that might break over time, and hopefully
>would not add too much time.
>
>What do you think?
>
>Kathey
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>


Mime
View raw message