db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel John Debrunner (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-2171) Issues section of RELEASE-NOTES is confusing
Date Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:51:21 GMT
    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2171?page=comments#action_12458261 ] 
            
Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-2171:
----------------------------------------------

The detailed entry for 1652 is confusing, hard to understand if the problem still exists or
has been fixed.
In the Solution section just says a fix is available in 10.1 and 10.2 (so why is it in the
issues section then?)
and then has a incomplete sentence "thrown now".

> Issues section of RELEASE-NOTES is confusing
> --------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-2171
>                 URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2171
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Documentation
>    Affects Versions: 10.2.1.6, 10.2.2.0
>            Reporter: Daniel John Debrunner
>
> I find the Issues section of the RELEASE-NOTES very confusing, the summary has a bullet
list of items with a number.
> The descriptions for all these issues do not describe the issue, they descibe the original
bug report. Thus when I read this list I don't get the impression that these are issues I
should care about. However when reading the detail I do see it is an issue that I should care
about.
> For example:
> From bullet list.
> "263 - Client should throw not implemented exception for depricated setUnicodeStream/getUnicodeStream"
> Says to me there is an outstanding bug in 10.2 where the client is throwing an exception
it should not.
> But the actual issue that will affect an application is well described by the statement
problem statement in the section for 253
> "PreparedStatement.setUnicodeStream() and ResultSet.getUnicodeStream() throw SQLException
when invoked after upgrading to Apache Derby 10.2."
> Seems like that would be the better text to be put in the bullet list.
> Looking at the detailed notes for the issues the text in Problem sometimes describes
something that is a good thing, not a Problem.
> E.g. 781, is it a problem Derby now performs a hash-join, if so why was it changed? (and
1357)
> Some that describe a Problem (e..g. 721,1130,1295,1314,1384,1652) are actually describing
a problem that no longer exists in 10.2, but I thought this section was about issues that
existed in 10.2. In these cases the Symptom text tends to describe the "problem" better. Ie.
the problem is that the code behaviour has changed, not the old bug.
> I don't understand why these are considered issues though: 668, 1621 - they seem to be
fixed bugs.
> 253, 1857, 822 are good examples to follow (except for the one liner in the bullet list)
> Also maybe there could be some text that explains what ISSUES are. :-) Something along
the lines of applications upgrading to 10.2 or using Derby for the first time should be aware
of these issues.

-- 
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

        

Mime
View raw message