Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:22:16 -0700
From: Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: Release candidate imminent
In-reply-to: <54ac72d70609181416g35e66cb6u5d6d0b370052dcc7@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <450F2A28.7090009@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <450EA467.6000400@sun.com>
 <54ac72d70609181416g35e66cb6u5d6d0b370052dcc7@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)

Andrew McIntyre wrote:

> On 9/18/06, Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@sun.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 2) I'm not clear on where we stand on the new scripts for building
>> add-on JDBC4 support. When this work finishes, the Release Notes will
>> need to mention these scripts. Andrew, can you shed some light on this?
>
>
> I stil need to test them more throughly, but they should work as follows:
>
> * download the -bin and -src distributions and unzip them
> * set DERBY_HOME to the location where you have unzipped the -bin 
> distribution
> * set JAVA_HOME to the location of a JDK 1.6 JVM.
> * cd into the tools/jdbc4 directory where you unzipped the -src 
> distribution
> * run the update-with-jdbc4 script (or batch file on Windows), and the
> jars in $DERBY_HOME/lib will be updated with the necessary JDBC 4
> classes.
>
> See also DERBY-1846: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1846

Thanks, Andrew. I will document this in the Release Notes. I will hold 
off generating the release until you're done and we've vetted these scripts.

>
> I'd appreciate it if someone could help test the scripts or assist
> with documentation.
>
>> 3) Anything else?
>
>
> JIRA still shows 98 open issues assigned to 10.2.1.0. If a release is
> really imminent, can we start punting issues that don't need to be
> fixed in 10.2.1.0 out to other releases, starting with the 61
> unassigned issues?
>
> I'm tempted to just select all the unassigned issues and punt them to
> 10.2.2, but perhaps a review of the issues is in order, in case any of
> the issues deserve specific mention in the release notes or
> documentation.

Agreed. We should detach these issues from 10.2.1.0. I vote for 
assigning them to 10.2.2.0. I had not considered the possibility of 
mining these issues for more release notes. I can make a first pass at 
this tomorrow.

>
> andrew