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: Regression checkbox (was Re: Can we change SQL State?)
Date Fri, 31 Mar 2006 21:30:03 GMT
Andrew McIntyre wrote:

>On 3/31/06, David W. Van Couvering <David.Vancouvering@sun.com> wrote:
>>I think notification is great.  I don't understand why what you are
>>suggesting should be "components" they really seem to me to make sense
>>as checkboxes -- how are these "components" of the system?  Andrew, can
>>you explain?
>I had misunderstood Kathey's request earlier. I agree that checkboxes
>for this behavior would be good to have to flag issues as regressive
>behavior, with an additional checkbox for release notes impact, and
>leaving the Regression Test Failure component specifically for test
>failures. I'm wondering though, if "Existing Application Impact" is
>perhaps redundant? In what situations would a behavior be a
>regression, need specific mentioning in the release notes, and not
>have an impact on existing applications?
It is the other way around.  ":Existing Application Impact" is for
things that are not regressions but  rather intentional behaviour
changes or fixes that might affect existing applications. An example
might be a bug fix that made Derby comply with standard behaviour where
it did not before.    It may have existing application impact but is not
a regression.


View raw message