db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Myrna van Lunteren <m.v.lunte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: 10.5.2 draft release notes
Date Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:59:25 GMT
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Kathey
Marsden<kmarsdenderby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Please review the attached RELEASE-NOTES.html file for the draft release
> notes for 10.5.2.0.  I expect a few more bugs to be added.
>
> I followed the process at http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/ReleaseNoteProcess
> to generate these release notes and it all went very well.  I didn't have to
> remove the DOCTYPE as the documentation suggests and our 2 release notes
> were well formed. In the end I only had a couple of questions for our
>  vacationing ReleaseNoteGenerator experts for contemplation upon their
> return.

Right, the DOCTYPE appeared to have been changed again...When I
modified the ReleaseNoteGenerator for DERBY-3598 I decided to leave
the comment in the ReleaseNoteProcess wiki in case that format would
ever come back - easier to figure out it's not there so no chanage
needed than to figure out what to do when it *is* there (it would
break the ReleaseNotesGenerator with very alarming/unhelpful
messages). I thought the comment was sufficiently vague - 'you may
have to...'


>
> 1) I noticed the releaseID is picked up from
> tools/ant/properties/release.properties not from releaseSummary.xml like the
> other values.  It is however in releaseSumary.xml.  Would it make sense to
> switch this to pick up the value from releaseSummary.xml or should we just
> update the documentation to say release.properties needs to be updated?  I
> prefer the former, but there seems to have been some amount of effort put
> into making this value come from release.properties.
>
The patch put out for DERBY-3598 by Dyre that I used for my later
changes attempted to:
1. Read the current version number from main.properties, so that
doesn't have to be specified in releaseSummary.xml
I guess I wasn't thorough enough in my reviews...We should take it out
of releaseSummary.xml...

> 2)  I added 10.5.1.1 to the  excludeReleaseID list  but its use has once
> again escaped me.   My fixedBugsList.xml had all bugs fixed in 10.5.1.2 and
> there didn't seem to be anything to exclude from that list.  Myrna explained
> this all to me once before but I seem to have forgotten and want to make
> sure I haven't missed anything.
>

The excludeReleaseID would be mostly helpful if you're making multiple
candidates for a release. For instance, if there were items listed as
fixed in 10.5.1.1 and 10.5.1.2.
Or, if an issue was backported to a previous branch and released there
too. For instance, then the fix version list would have 10.4.2.1 and
10.4.3.0 and 10.5.1.1.
None of the bugs on the current list fall into these categories, so
either there was no need or the excludeReleaseID worked correctly.
I hope this makes sense...

> Thanks
>
> Kathey
>

I only noticed 1 questionable item - DERBY-2209 was actually fixed
already in 10.5.1.2 - the bug didn't have any fix version listed and
was apparently picked up for that reason.
I think it's ok to leave it in, but just in case you need to redo the
release notes for some other reason I added the fix versions in JIRA.

Myrna
>
>

Mime
View raw message