I was *this* close to doing a vote for this. Maybe it's time to make
this happen?
David
Dyre.Tjeldvoll@Sun.COM wrote:
> "Bernt M. Johnsen" <Bernt.Johnsen@Sun.COM> writes:
>
>> So, the question is then: Is this a Derby 10 release, or should it
>> really be Derby 11?
>>
>> Myself, I have no strong feelings, but wanted to raise the discussion.
>
> Me neither, but here are my observations:
>
> 1) Derby's charter doesn't mention backward compatibility (or forward
> compatibility) at all
>
> 2) It has been argued that backward compatibility is implied by the
> "easy to use" requirement, but I think this discussion shows this
> to be inadequate. Clearly, both "secure by default" and "backward
> comatibility" could be seen as ease of use features (The charter
> only says "Secure". It doesn't mention "secure by default"). But
> which ease of use feature is more important? I think the implicit
> "backward compatibility" requirement and its importance relative to
> other requirements should be added to the charter.
>
> 3) As far as I can tell (from the Derby website), the idea that an
> incompatibility is OK iff you bump the major version number has not
> been formally accepted/ratified by the Derby community. David van
> Couvering has written a Wiki page about this,
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/ForwardCompatibility#head-fb84926793e6687822e8397203265a6497911efe
>
> which (in my interpretation) suggests that requiring the -unsecure
> option is an INCOMPATIBLE change to a STABLE interface, and that
> this should only be allowed when changing the major version
> number. However, this wiki page has numerous disclaimers which
> state that this is "just a draft" and "work in progress".
>
> If there has been a vote on this, it is not recorded on
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/VoteResults
>
> According to nabble the last discussion about this seems
> to be
>
> http://www.nabble.com/-PRE-VOTE-DISCUSSION--Compatibility-rules-and-interface-table-tf1782536.html#a4854300
>
> which doesn't seem to reach a consensus. There doesn't seem to be
> any major disagreement though...
>
|