db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: 10.2 status
Date Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:31:25 GMT
I tried the mega merge approach this time and ended up with a conflict 
on one of the patches which had been ported previously. I don't know if 
there was something special about the patch or if that's just to be 
expected. So I broke the merge up into mini-merges whose endpoints were 
the patches which had been ported already. That resulted in no 
conflicts. Any regular policy would simplify the job of the release 
manager. Unfortunately, regardless of the policy, people will make 
mistakes and create outlying cases. It's those outliers which complicate 
the process. All in all, I prefer the following policy--but I'm still 
going to have to sanity check the submission comments on every patch:

1) Don't bother merging from the trunk to the branch. I'll sweep up 
these changes in a mega-merge.

2) However, if you think a patch should not be ported to 10.2, then 
please note that in the table at the end of this 10.2 wiki page: 

This time around, the following patches were not merged. All of the 
others were merged either by me or by the original committers:

r437215 | bpendleton | 2006-08-26 12:42:02 -0700 (Sat, 26 Aug 2006) | 18 
  DERBY-119: Add ALTER TABLE option to change column from NULL to NOT NULL

r438942 | mikem | 2006-08-31 07:39:55 -0700 (Thu, 31 Aug 2006) | 11 lines
  DERBY-1583 contributed by Bryan Pendleton


Mike Matrigali wrote:

> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> Thanks for the warning, Mike. I'm cautiously hopeful that this won't 
>> be a problem. I'll find out!
>> Regards,
>> -Rick
> Definitely let us know which makes the work easier.  For most changes I
> would be happy to commit to trunk and wait for the mega merge to move
> them to the branch.

View raw message