Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 67024 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2006 15:35:04 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 19 Sep 2006 15:35:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 56749 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2006 15:35:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-db-derby-dev-archive@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 56534 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2006 15:35:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: Delivered-To: mailing list derby-dev@db.apache.org Received: (qmail 56525 invoked by uid 99); 19 Sep 2006 15:35:03 -0000 Received: from idunn.apache.osuosl.org (HELO idunn.apache.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.84) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:35:03 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= Received: from ([209.237.227.198:57961] helo=brutus.apache.org) by idunn.apache.osuosl.org (ecelerity 2.1 r(10620)) with ESMTP id 61/A1-28275-62E00154 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:35:02 -0700 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50855410067 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2006 15:31:27 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <19034181.1158679887326.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:31:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "A B (JIRA)" To: derby-dev@db.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-1860) Create release notes for 10.2 In-Reply-To: <7950371.1158423682315.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1860?page=comments#action_12435885 ] A B commented on DERBY-1860: ---------------------------- I did a quick read of the html file attached this issue and I noticed two things: 1. DERBY-781 is not listed anywhere on the page. Was than an intentional exclusion, and if so, can I ask why? The reason I think it's important is because it has an associated release note that talks about how users who upgrade to 10.2 might see a change in behavior--namely, potential increase in compilation time for queries that do joins with subqueries. The fix-in version is set to 10.2.1.0...is that not the correct version? Note: This is marked as an "Improvement" instead of a "bug" or "new feature"--could that by chance have anything to do with why it's not included? 2. The release note provided for DERBY-688 is not included. Was that intentional? If the release note as a whole is not worthy of being mentioned, at the very least we need to include the part about which version of Xalan has been used for testing of XML. The documentation says that the user can find out what Xalan version is supported by looking at the release notes, so I think it needs to be mentioned somewhere. In case your wondering, I'm thinking something along the lines of what Xalan does on their release page w.r.t the Xerces dependency: http://xml.apache.org/xalan-j/faq.html#faq-N10095 http://xml.apache.org/xalan-j/#current > Create release notes for 10.2 > ----------------------------- > > Key: DERBY-1860 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1860 > Project: Derby > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Documentation > Reporter: Rick Hillegas > Fix For: 10.2.1.0 > > Attachments: derby-1860-v01.diff, derby-1860-v02.diff, RELEASE-NOTES.html > > > Create release notes to be bundled with the release. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira