Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:29:09 -0800
From: David Van Couvering <david@vancouvering.com>
Subject: Re: Q: Should Derby 10.3 be Derby 11?
In-reply-to: <x1o3r6sk50ku.fsf@sun.com>
Sender: David.Vancouvering@Sun.COM
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <45DB3DF5.20702@vancouvering.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <20070220122438.GB4110@atum01.norway.sun.com>
 <x1o3r6sk50ku.fsf@sun.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060911)

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...
>