Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 67779 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2006 22:43:19 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 22 Jun 2006 22:43:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 12650 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jun 2006 22:43:19 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 12623 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jun 2006 22:43:18 -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 12614 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jun 2006 22:43:18 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:43:18 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=UNPARSEABLE_RELAY X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy) Received: from [192.18.42.249] (HELO nwkea-pix-1.sun.com) (192.18.42.249) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:43:17 -0700 Received: from d1-sfbay-03.sun.com ([192.18.39.113]) by nwkea-pix-1.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k5MMgpb4000630 for ; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:42:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from conversion-daemon.d1-sfbay-03.sun.com by d1-sfbay-03.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) id <0J1A00F019NSXE00@d1-sfbay-03.sun.com> (original mail from David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM) for derby-dev@db.apache.org; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:42:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.9.61.102] by d1-sfbay-03.sun.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPSA id <0J1A006UM9RFL110@d1-sfbay-03.sun.com> for derby-dev@db.apache.org; Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:42:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:42:58 -0700 From: David Van Couvering Subject: Re: Proposal for 10.2 release schedule In-reply-to: <449B1430.70506@apache.org> Sender: David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM To: derby-dev@db.apache.org Message-id: <449B1CF2.8020706@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <449AEAA7.8030109@sun.com> <449AF1B0.3050005@sbcglobal.net> <449AF92B.3030804@sun.com> <449AFE49.4040404@apache.org> <449B0646.9040701@sun.com> <449B0C70.3060807@apache.org> <449B0F0B.9020304@sun.com> <449B1430.70506@apache.org> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060427) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Ok, this is very tricky. First, I'd like to make sure we're on the same page here about Java DB going into the JDK. I think in general the community thinks it's a good thing for Derby for Java DB to be in the JDK. It gives us great exposure and distribution. I also think the community would probably like it if databases created by the version of Java DB to be upgradable to a subsequent release of Derby, so that users can get the latest and greatest functionality of Derby directly from the Apache web site, or even upgrade to a future release of Cloudscape if they decide to get support from IBM. In order for this to work, we need Java DB to be based on an official, "GA-ready" release of Derby to be what Sun redistributes in Mustang. Otherwise databases created in Mustang will be "locked in" to Java DB. The problem is that it can't *actually* be GA until after JCP approves JSR 221, JDBC 4.0, which will happen in tandem with the GA release of the JDK, around 5 weeks after the JDK team needs their final integration bits from all the pieces going into it. I think what Rick is asking for is a release that is voted as "GA-ready", has the GA-bit turned on, but because of JCP rules is not actually *made* generally available until JSR 220 becomes final. Since we all need to vet this release and approve it, it would be available to the Derby community, but not *generally* available by distributing it on all the Apache mirrors. I know this seems like a fine hair to split, but it's the only way we can be successful without Sun having to do a non-upgradable fork of Derby, which I don't think any of us want. I hope this helps to clear things up, even if it doesn't make things simpler :) David Daniel John Debrunner wrote: > Rick Hillegas wrote: > >> Daniel John Debrunner wrote: > >>> The mid-Sep Derby release candidate will be marked alpha or beta (JCP >>> rules) so the databases won't upgrade anyway. >>> >>> >> I apologize for creating confusion here. We'd like Mustang to ship with >> a fully functional Derby, which creates upgradeable databases. So I'm >> assuming that we turn off the beta marker on the vetted candidate before >> handing the candidate to Mustang for QA bake-in. > > Sorry, I don't understand, I thought Derby 10.2 cannot be marked GA > until Mustang ships. How can it be marked GA without violating the JCP > requirements. > > Sorry if I'm being dense. > Dan. > >