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 18:50:11 GMT
Hi Dan,

Yes, I'll add this useful information to the wiki page after I've posted 
the new beta.


Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

>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:
>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.
>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.

View raw message