db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Myrna van Lunteren" <m.v.lunte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 10.2 plans (was Re: 10.2 licensing issue)
Date Tue, 12 Sep 2006 13:16:02 GMT
On 9/11/06, Suresh Thalamati <suresh.thalamati@gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> > Taking this over to derby-dev...
> >
> > On 9/11/06, Kathey Marsden <kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Many of these regressions sadly have already made their way into 10.1.3
> >> and therefore are being picked up by users for production.  I
> >> think we need to notify the user community of the situation, try to get
> >> more user input on 10.2 and  flush out more regressions.   We port fixes
> >> to 10.1 to try to get it to  a stable state and then release 10.2.  Also
> >> any ideas anyone has for new optimizer tests would be good and folks
> >> could write those.
> >>
> >> Those are all my ideas for now.  It could be that lots of users  have
> >> tried 10.2 without problems but haven't reported in and then it is just
> >> a matter of getting them to speak up.
> >
> >
> > I don't think we should hold up the 10.2 release except for known
> > regressions. I think it's a chicken-and-egg problem. Users aren't
> > motivated to try out the beta, because it's extra time and effort on
> > their part, so you aren't actually informed about regressions until
> > the regression is in a release that people actually try to use. Better
> > to release early so new code gets into actual user's hands so
> > regressions can be flushed out sooner. Regressions happen, and no
> > release is ever go to be perfect (although that would be nice,
> > wouldn't it?).
> > Better to release often so code where regressions have been identified
> > and fixed get into user's hands sooner.
> >
> > I think releasing early and often is an area we as a community, and
> > individually through the tasks we take on for any particular release,
> > could improve.
> >
> > andrew
> >
> I agree with Andrew, unless there are known regression to be fixed, it
> is not practical to wait for the users to report if there are any
> issues with 10.2.  Or there need to be some kind of time frame when
> the beta testing closes.
> /suresh
For what it's worth, my position is somewhere in the middle. I think
there are some worrying aspects to some of those optimizer-related
regressions. Also, I feel we're still scrambling on 10.2.; still
documentation changes are being worked on...Now that in a way some of
the pressure to release is off, we need to take another look at
changes slated for 10.2.2 and see if there are any that really should
go in to make the first release of 10.2 but we've dropped because of
lack of time.

If we release now, we should focus activities for 10.2.2 with the goal
of making it more robust as well as having the jdbc40 support in.


View raw message