Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of mcintyre.a@gmail.com designates
 66.249.92.168 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=MPaxv5Ylbix0b+F8q5XRXpOxgIqn41SxZsiRliorxGqq2XSNkmR4ht5kVDB6FcAgDi/LF5StFYTpExIfEUn1EzjoIP4w6EEfzdL2FduglnKM53L4D+cYZB7H0EXJOThyJ6+OzWgwyheGPlrM6nac0aaheTJpEU3qLxUt63rgk78=
Message-ID: <54ac72d70609081120r33d4ca84m332c7707b9082025@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 11:20:39 -0700
From: "Andrew McIntyre" <mcintyre.a@gmail.com>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: Re: Release Notes
In-Reply-To: <4501B322.7080601@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <44EB4F17.3090401@sun.com>
	 <54ac72d70608221208i54a247cegad1034a827a91804@mail.gmail.com>
	 <44EDC8B3.8090708@apache.org>
	 <54ac72d70609080123p46be5f88yc5ab6b5ef73387d2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <45017EAA.2080000@sun.com> <4501AC5F.7000301@sbcglobal.net>
	 <4501B322.7080601@apache.org>

On 9/8/06, Daniel John Debrunner <djd@apache.org> wrote:
> Kathey Marsden wrote:
>
> > I hope I am not hijacking this thread but I have a question about the
> > release notes.
> > The practice of marking multiple fix versions in Jira means that the
> > Jira release notes for 10.2 also include all of  issues that are fixed
> > in 10.2 and previous releases.  For example if an issue was marked fixed
> > in 10.1.3.1 and 10.2  it shows up in the 10.2 release notes, but really
> > should not.
>
> I assuming the issues you are refering to were fixed in the trunk after
> the 10.1 branch creation and were also fixed in the 10.1 branch.
>
> Can you explain why they should not show up in the 10.2 release notes? I
> guess that assumption confuses me.

Agreed. To clarify with an example, if a user was upgrading from
10.0.2.1 to 10.2.1.x, shouldn't an item that was fixed in 10.2 and
then backported to 10.1 still be in the release notes for 10.2? I
think users who skipped the 10.1 release would still be interested in
seeing that an issue was fixed in the release they are upgrading to.

andrew