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: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 13:36:04 -0800
From: "David W. Van Couvering" <David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: Should we vote on it? (was Re: Discussion (in preparation for a
 vote) on interface stability table)
In-reply-to: <442C4E76.1090504@sun.com>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <442C4F44.90409@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
References: <4429C948.1050606@sun.com> <442C4E76.1090504@sun.com>

Just to be clear, what we'd be voting on would be not only the various 
definitions of interface stability but *also*, for each declared 
interface, the level of stability we as a community are agreeing to 
support.  This can then guide decisions by developers and reviewers as 
to whether a change to a given interface can be accepted or not.

David

David W. Van Couvering wrote:
> It's been awfully quiet out there.  Are there really no other opinions 
> about this.  One little peep from Dan and another from Kathey, and we're 
> done?  Is this the derby-dev alias I know and love?
> 
> I mean, maybe it's just *that* good that there is no debate, but 
> somehow, I wonder...
> 
> I'll give it another 24 hours, and if there are no other comments, I'm 
> going to basically take the contents of these page and put them up for a 
> vote.  If the vote passes, I'll migrate the contents of the vote to the 
> "main" web site so that our "contracts" around these interfaces 
> stabilities are more or less set in stone, as it were.
> 
> David
> 
> David W. Van Couvering wrote:
> 
>> Hi, all.  I would like to propose that we have a discussion, in 
>> preparation for (at some time in the future) a vote on the interface 
>> table I put together at
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/ForwardCompatibility
>>
>> The approach I was thinking of is:
>>
>> - everybody who is interested take a look at this table, and raise 
>> issues as needed
>>
>> - discussion ensues as needed
>>
>> - I will incrementally update the Wiki page when it seems there is a 
>> consensus on a particular issue
>>
>> Once things have somewhat stabilized (and where there is contention, 
>> people are starting to repeat themselves :)), I'll then I'll hold a 
>> vote.  The vote email will contain the relevant text and the interface 
>> table from the Wiki page, so that we know what we're voting on and so 
>> that it ends up in the archives.
>>
>> This interface table would be for the next release of Derby (10.1.3 or 
>> 10.2, whichever comes first).
>>
>> I would like to suggest that if you want to discuss the stability 
>> classification of a *particular* interface, you do so with a separate, 
>> specific email subject line, so that those who may be interested will 
>> notice and participate.
>>
>> How does this sound?
>>
>> Does anyone think we need to vote on the interface taxonomy and the 
>> definition of an interface separate from the stability classifications 
>> given to each interface?
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>