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, 14 Aug 2006 08:29:46 -0700
From: Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: Keeping track of what not to merge to 10.2
In-reply-to: <54ac72d70608111944v4b9db8dfx26eecebcc0d9ff6a@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <44E096EA.2090702@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <54ac72d70608111944v4b9db8dfx26eecebcc0d9ff6a@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for bringing this up. For the moment, I have added these two 
patches to a table at the end of the 10.2 wiki page 
(http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/TenTwoRelease#head-9f5403facb22940ce58ca9c6ab03d1307b694d64). 
Right now, I'm hoping we can keep on top of this by tracking these 
non-portable patches and doing a mega-merge once a week. However, we may 
have to switch to the port-as-you-go model if too many of these 
non-portable patches start piling up.

Regards,
-Rick

Andrew McIntyre wrote:

> The 10.2 branch was created with revision 430830, and there are now
> two changes that should not be merged to 10.2: revisions 430857 and
> 430946.
>
> Rick, is there somewhere you would like to keep this information,
> perhaps one of either the TenTwoRelease or TenTwoSnapshot wiki pages?
> The other option is just to merge all in between patches when
> something goes into the trunk that shouldn't go into 10.2, to keep
> things simple. If you'd prefer to handle it that way, just let me
> know, I can help out with the merging and such.
>
> Thanks,
> andrew