Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 26367 invoked from network); 7 Nov 2005 21:03:36 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Nov 2005 21:03:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 75214 invoked by uid 500); 7 Nov 2005 21:03:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 75182 invoked by uid 500); 7 Nov 2005 21:03:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 75172 invoked by uid 99); 7 Nov 2005 21:03:35 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:03:35 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.8 required=10.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [32.97.182.141] (HELO e1.ny.us.ibm.com) (32.97.182.141) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:03:29 -0800 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jA7L35FA025553 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:03:05 -0500 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VERS6.7) with ESMTP id jA7L35qu103716 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:03:05 -0500 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id jA7L356r029215 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:03:05 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sig-9-48-114-237.mts.ibm.com [9.48.114.237]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id jA7L32nI029024 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:03:04 -0500 Message-ID: <436FC103.20705@sbcglobal.net> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:02:59 -0800 From: Kathey Marsden User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: derby-dev@db.apache.org Subject: Re: Question about client compatibility testing and DERBY-516 (paging Rick #:)) References: <436F9BD7.7070408@sbcglobal.net> <436FA4F0.3010607@sun.com> <436FA94C.9040507@sbcglobal.net> <436FB699.7080004@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <436FB699.7080004@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.85.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Rick Hillegas wrote: > 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. > I think trunk server with 10.1.1.0 client and trunk client with 10.1.1.0 server with whatever jvm the developer is using for derbyall would provide a good basic sanity check for protocol compatibility with client and server changes on the trunk. Ultimately as yous say someone would be well advised to run derbyall with the various clients on the branches before releases. Kathey