Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mcintyre.a@gmail.com
 designates 72.14.220.158 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=ksNqXLPuD8x+LkGxNlp7F4wUgbrMH3w+ZXlUY/mOn65uPT7QW7QGfoEp96Qsa/UjG6SVV0yHXnew/pmAwS5kXJU4flkwNO1NQZVcY30SygkRQ/4OPy4BOxwbxQVq3gmXQGddhRmis0k8aqYsNLTyAKeLYrH0ZLqvH9nlsWFMjx4=
Message-ID: <54ac72d70804290105k25767909o8f19e293d111911e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:05:47 -0700
From: "Andrew McIntyre" <mcintyre.a@gmail.com>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Proposal for Review] The fix for DERBY-3347 is important enough
 for the Development Community to issue a recommendation the User Community to
 upgrade.
In-Reply-To: <4816CD2F.6010403@Sun.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <48166A67.5010709@gmail.com> <4816CD2F.6010403@Sun.COM>

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:24 AM, John Embretsen <John.Embretsen@sun.com> wrote:
>
>  It does not seem absolutely clear from that derby-user thread that upgrading to
>  10.4.1.3 resolved the issue. Are we still confident (enough) that the issue has
>  been completely fixed in 10.4.1.3?
>
>  A link to DERBY-3347 on Jira should be included. Not all users know what
>  "DERBY-3347" means.

Funny, I'm having trouble finding the exact mail that convinced me
that we should issue a release for the issue, but a thorough reread of
DERBY-3347 should do it for you. Expecting users to read DERBY-3347
carefully and understand what is going on is not something we should
expect them to do. :-)

So, we should provide a more descriptive summary of the issue. What
was happening, how to figure out if you've hit it, possible remedies,
what was done to fix it, etc. Our release note template already
provides a good template for the information that a user would want to
see.

Does anyone have time to write a good release note for DERBY-3347?
There's not currently one attached.

>  One thing I'd been wondering about if I was a regular user coming across this
>  message is if previous releases also have this bug, e.g. 10.2? I have not
>  followed the reported issues in detail - do we know more about exactly which
>  versions contain this bug?

DERBY-3347 was caused by changes for DERBY-801 which was introduced
around the time of the first 10.2 release. 10.2 branched at 430830,
before these changes went into the trunk, and from looking at the logs
they were not merged to the 10.2 branch. I would not have expected
them to be merged to 10.2 once it had branched, given our general
policy on merging functional changes to branches.

>  We should probably specify the full version numbers of the specific 10.3
>  releases, since there may be another 10.3 release soon with the fix included,
>  and we don't want to confuse people (who may be reading the message in the
>  archives) more than necessary.

This issue affects both official 10.3 releases, 10.3.1.4, and
10.3.2.1, and the fix will be included in 10.3.3.x, I agree it's good
to call this out in the announcement.

>  > run the database consistency at least once to validate all tables in the
>  > database.  This process is documented at:
>  >
>  >  http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/DatabaseConsistencyCheck

It would be nice to have a documented way for a user to identify if
they've hit this problem, whether it's on a wiki page, in the release
notes, or in the announcement itself. The wiki page has a good
description of how to run the consistency check and an example of
output. Maybe the wiki page could be augmented with the output that
might be expected if a user has hit this issue with one of their
databases.

andrew