db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jean T. Anderson" <...@bristowhill.com>
Subject Re: Bumping the fourth digit
Date Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:19:28 GMT
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>>>> Kathey Marsden wrote:
>>>>> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As a test of this, I have updated the description of 10.4.2.1. 
>>>>>> You can see this by clicking on the link you forwarded. Does this

>>>>>> format look reasonable to you?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think we cannot include an url to the Sun build in Jira.  
>>>>> According to:
>>>>> http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
>>>>>
>>>>> "Do not include any links on the project website that might 
>>>>> encourage non-developers to download and use nightly builds, 
>>>>> snapshots, release candidates, or any other similar package.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Under no circumstances are unapproved builds a substitute for 
>>>>> releases. If this policy seems inconvenient, then release more 
>>>>> often. Proper release management is a key aspect of Apache 
>>>>> software development.
>>>>>
>>>> That www.apache.org/dev/release.html policy governs distribution of 
>>>> software produced by an Apache project and made available for 
>>>> download from  an Apache website.
>>>>
>>>> Why are we concerned about tracking releases produced by non-Apache 
>>>> entities, such as Sun?
>>> And IBM. And anyone else who wants to build a distribution from the 
>>> community branches. We're talking about tracking and fixing bugs 
>>> which are logged against commit points on a community codeline, 
>>> whether that is the development mainline or one of our stable 
>>> branches. This is useful to everyone who drinks out of the common well.
>>>
>>
>> but it doesn't make sense for an apache project to reference somebody 
>> else's external (non-Apache) build or distribution.  --That's a 
>> slippery slope that would then need to accommodate anybody who comes 
>> along. And we should never bump the Derby release number to 
>> accommodate an external project.
> Hi Jean,
>
> If you need to fix bugs in the metadata queries, then you have to bump 
> the last digit of the release id in order to coax Derby into 
> recompiling the queries. This is what IBM did to fix DERBY-3919. 
> Committers fix bugs all the time in order to accommodate external 
> projects. Do you believe that the community has agreed to a limitation 
> on updates to the last digit of the release id, and if so, what are 
> those limitations?
>

I think I'm not quite understanding the fundamental issue here.  I have 
no problem with Sun tech support finding a problem, doing the fix, and 
committing it to Apache. Or IBM doing the same thing. Or Joe WhomEver 
from Company X.

The issue is if any external entity fixes something in their own distro 
that hasn't been contributed back to apache yet, they're on their own. I 
don't think we should accommodate that. But rereading this, I don't 
think this is what you intended and I misunderstood. I'm sorry.

Sun effectively released from the 10.4.2 branch to include a fix that is 
in that branch at Apache, but "10.4.2" isn't specific enough to identify 
what comprises that release. Is this right? :-)

In this case, I agree that we might want to consider bumping the digit 
on a per-request basis, but I want to make sure that we do this in a way 
that makes general sense. And I also realize that this might conceivably 
leave us open to criticism that we are enabling support for unofficial 
releases.

My actual preference here is if there's a need for release with, let's 
say, 2 bug fixes, go ahead and release officially. :-) I would think 
that a branch + 2 fixes (or however many) would be an easy shoe-in for a 
release vote because all the heavy lifting was done on that release for 
that branch.

 -jean



Mime
View raw message