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, 03 Apr 2006 11:23:32 -0700
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: <443112ED.7030802@sun.com>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <44316824.8030702@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>
 <442C7365.7090709@sun.com> <442C7E65.6020805@sun.com>
 <442D6092.8020907@sun.com> <442D6665.8040703@apache.org>
 <442D6F3E.2030709@sun.com> <442D805B.4080207@sun.com>
 <442D833A.7060309@apache.org> <443112ED.7030802@sun.com>

I think this is a good approach.  Having the project open source solves 
some of these nasty "bug-compatibility" issues that can occur with 
closed-source projects with Big Customers.

I'll try to add something to this effect in the Wiki page, although it 
may already be covered in the Exceptions section.

David

Oystein Grovlen - Sun Norway wrote:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> 
>> Remember this is open-source, there are no customers or "important
>> customers", only users and developers.
>>
>> If a user doesn't like the solution they have at least two options:
>>
>>    - get involved in the Derby developer community
>>    - patch the source
>>
>> I prefer the first.
> 
> 
> Good point, Dan.
> 
> Users of Derby has several options when a new release break their 
> application:
>    - Fix their application
>    - Use the old release (i.e., not upgrade)
>    - Pay someone (e.g. Sun or IBM) to fix their problem.
>    - Get involved in the Derby community and suggest a fix to their 
> problem.
>    - Patch the source by reverting the fix that causes problem for them.
> 
> I am pretty sure that there will case where it is NOT worth the extra 
> effort by the community to ensure that a specific user is able to upgrade.
> 
> I also think it is a violation of the Derby charter to NOT fix bugs or 
> correct sql-states for compatibility reasons.  The Derby charter states 
> that Derby is standard compliant.  If there are cases where it does not 
> comply to the standard, we have the obligation to fix that.
>