db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 10.2 status
Date Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:37:15 GMT
Rick Hillegas wrote:

> 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:
> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/TenTwoRelease.

Rick thanks for doing these merges, can you keep the wiki upto date with
what *has* been merged? I think it's fine to say as I did after your
last merge that everything has been merged up to a certain point
excluding the list above, rather than list everything that has been merged.

Eg.

All changes on the trunk from the time the 10.2 branch was created and
ending with subversion revision 432654 (excluding the above) were merged
into the 10.2 branch on 2006/8/18.

Thanks,
Dan.




Mime
View raw message