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: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:27:55 -0700
From: David Van Couvering <David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: Unexplained diff in procedureInTrigger.sql for JDK 1.6
In-reply-to: <44CFF0EF.4090402@apache.org>
Sender: David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <44D00DAB.9070806@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <44CFE41A.7070909@sun.com> <44CFE8B3.2060606@apache.org>
 <44CFE980.6050408@sun.com> <44CFEE9D.5020601@sun.com>
 <44CFF0EF.4090402@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060427)

The harm is that each developer has to sift through a diff for a known 
bug.  If we all did this then we would have a stack of diffs and we'd 
have to do pattern recognition to know if our change caused a regression 
or not.  That has me concerned...  That's why I thought I'd log the bug, 
since it's not a major issue, and note that a canon file is masking the 
bug for now.

I think there are a whole class of master file outputs that are there 
because of bugs.  I think I even fixed a bug for 10.1.3 that you 
reported which had its output encoded in a master file.

David

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> David Van Couvering wrote:
> 
>> Now that I think of it further, I suspect it is not good practice to
>> hold a test hostage waiting for this bug to be fixed, and I should
>> probably add a jdk16-specific master file for procedureInTrigger.sql.
>>
>> I can point the reader of the bug to this master file as a guide to
>> reproducing the problem...
>>
>> Any thoughts?  Otherwise I'll go ahead and do that...
> 
> Little nervous. Especially as your comment says "so at least derbyall
> can pass". With derbyall "passing" a release could go ahead, having
> derbyall failing might hold up a release, but I can't see anyone making
> DERBY-1629 blocker or critical. Maybe the fact it is marked as a
> regression is enough.
> 
> Is there any harm in having this test continue fail due to a real bug?
> 
> 
> Dan.
> 
>