Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:18:33 -0800
From: Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: Question about client compatibility testing and DERBY-516 (paging
 Rick #:))
In-reply-to: <436FA94C.9040507@sbcglobal.net>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <436FB699.7080004@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
References: <436F9BD7.7070408@sbcglobal.net> <436FA4F0.3010607@sun.com>
 <436FA94C.9040507@sbcglobal.net>

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
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>