db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Matrigali <mikem_...@sbcglobal.net>
Subject Re: JUnit and Derby 10.2; plans for merging?
Date Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:21:51 GMT
I also didn't think we were going to backport all the junit stuff
to 10.2.  As Myrna points out some of those changes involve decisions
not valid for 10.2, a released product.

It is unfortunate that some bug tests won't backport cleanly, but
that could be the case with any backport, and even if we fix 10.2
still is a problem for 10.1.  Maybe it might make
sense to have new bug fixes in the trunk go into "new" junit tests
rather than existing files - would this make the backport easier?

Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
> On 11/20/06, Daniel John Debrunner <djd@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> Kristian Waagan wrote:
>> > Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> >> Hi Kristian,
>> >>
>> >> I agree that we should stabilize the 10.2 tests soon since we're
>> >> planning a 10.2.2 release in early December. If we don't merge the
>> >> JUnit infrastructure into 10.2, then porting a bug fix to the 10.2
>> >> branch may involve re-writing the test case which verifies the fix.
>> >
>> > Rick,
>> >
>> > I see your point, but had the impression this was not going to be done.
>> > Maybe I have missed a lot of commits, but I thought most of the JUnit
>> > work on trunk has not been merged to 10.2. Am I wrong?
>>
>> I thought the tests in 10.2 were stable. 10.2 uses derbyall only and not
>> the Junit top-level suites. I didn't even know the top-level JUnit
>> suites were in 10.2. They were merged up from a point in time when they
>> were known not to be working.
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/db/derby/code/branches/10.2/java/testing/org/apache/derbyTesting/functionTests/suites/All.java?view=log&pathrev=476832

>>
>>
>> Dan.
>>
>>
> I feel apprehesive about backporting all changes to junit framework in
> trunk back to 10.2.
> 1. 10.2 is stable...which should mean changes get applied more selectively.
> 2. The changes in the trunk have been made with happy disregard of jcc
> and jdk spec 1.3.1 based jvms.
> 
> I can understand the wish to just put a specific test back to 10.2
> without any work, but I am worried that backporting all the current
> changes to 10.2 is going to be more painful than meets the eye.
> 
> Of course, I have no actual proof there is going to be trouble, nor
> that there isn't...
> 
> Myrna
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message