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 Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:47:11 GMT
Thanks, Dan. This is great feedback. I am glad that you feel 10.2 is so 
close to generating a release candidate. Based on feedback from you and 
Mike, I have downgraded the urgency of some issues. The following 6 
urgent issues remain:


New behavior that violates our governing standards:

Untested new behavior:

Failure in new behavior:

About to be closed:

I'm happy to hear arguments about why some or all of these issues should 
be downgraded to the point that they don't block 10.2.


Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

>Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>Thanks to everyone for your help in whittling down the list of urgent
>>issues. Now we're down to 6 unclaimed ones. That's good news although
>>still not good enough to cut a release candidate.
>I didn't realise that you view urgent issues as blockers for a release,
>I was working on the assumption that a bug had to be marked as critical
>or blocker for it to block a release.
>Looking at the list of urgent issues that are not blocker or critical
>(in fact there are no blocker/critical 10.2 issues) in my view some, if
>not all, would not block a release, e.g. DERBY-1746 need to test with
>10.1.3 for upgrade, why is it important to be testing with 10.1.3 as
>opposed to 10.1.2, probably equally likely a user will have either release.
>It is your choice as the release manager, but once all legal hurdles
>have been resolved (or Mustang releases as GA :-) I would hope we as a
>community could issue a release as soon as possible, and not wait for it
>to be perfect. E.g. DERBY-1664, created one day after the initial code
>"freeze" target, since then not much interest from anyone, seems a
>little late and unrealistic to make it a blocker for a 10.2 release.

View raw message