db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kathey Marsden <kmarsdende...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: Signal to noise on derby-dev
Date Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:50:59 GMT
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

>I think as Jean said keeping and changing subject lines to reflect the
>true discussion is vital. I don't think we do a good job here. I think
>sometimes we continue a discussion as Jira comments when really it has
>expanded to be a wider topic than that specific Jira entry. For example
>there is some discussion about metadata queries and backwards/forwards
>comptability (I think) but it's hidden in one of the non-descript JBDC
>4.0 Jira entries "add blah blah methods to blah blah class".
I can see your point at one level.  The issue of metadata maintenance
came up first last December in the context of DERBY-573 and perhaps 
that was masked to the folks interested in the topic. 


On the other hand, in the context of many Jira issues, long term
maintainability issues have come up.  Often  the patch may not introduce
a regression today but might create a state where it is impossible to
fix a bug in the future, extremely difficult to maintain, impact rarely
tested jvm/derby combinations,  or require some sort of  general
infrastructure that is missing .  Examples are, maintenance of
metadata,  maintenance of client/server compatibility,  maintenance
issues associated with sharing a class,  handling of partially
implemented features at release time etc.

In the scratch your own itch world I have found that usually the person
working on a  single Jira entry doesn't  want to address these global
issues, but I think that it is their responsibility to make sure that
the long term maintenance impact of their  specific  change is addressed
and to that extent  the conversation belongs in the bug.


View raw message