db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lily Wei <lily...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: DERBY-4331 and the 10.5.2.0 release
Date Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:55:45 GMT
I agree with all the data we have so far none of us can weigh whether DERBY-3962 is worse than
DERBY-4331 or vice-versa. However, we know 10.5.2.0 fix DERBY-3962 and it has DERBY-4331.
However, DERBY-4331 has a ugly work around by Calling SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_UPDATE_STATISTICS on
the tables involved. We have a handle on simpler repro case with three tables join and one
subquery join with two tables 
(repro script by Mamba). Do we have to make a decision now? I will think wait for one more
day will give us time to have better handle on DERBY-4331.  

Thanks,
Lily



________________________________
From: Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 10:05:30 AM
Subject: Re: DERBY-4331 and the 10.5.2.0 release

Hi Kathey,

Thanks for release-managing 10.5.2.0 and for proposing a next step.

Another option would be:

1) You can give 10.5.2.0 to your users who need the fix to DERBY-3962

2) But remove 10.5.2.0 from the Apache website

3) Back out the fix for DERBY-3962 and spin a 10.5.2.1 RC

3) Continue to work on 10.5.3, which would fix DERBY-3962 and DERBY-4331.

Vetting for the RC could be expedited and take, say, a week.

It seems to me that the reactions to this email thread were mostly negative. I don't know
that any of us can weigh whether DERBY-3962 is worse than DERBY-4331 or vice-versa. My sense
is that DERBY-3962 is not really fixed and the problem was simply shifted elsewhere--I do
not believe this regression would have been allowed if it had been noticed earlier.

Thanks,
-Rick

Kathey Marsden wrote:
> Mike Matrigali wrote:
>> Kathey Marsden wrote:
>>> Knut identified a wrong results regression in 10.5.2.0, DERBY-4331.  I normally
would not want to make a release with a known wrong results regression, but am not quite sure
what to do with 10.5.2.0.  The vote closed and passed. The release has been posted to the
website, but no announcement has been made.  Should we continue with the release or try to
abort and make  another release candidate?  
> 10.5.2.0 fixes 8 regression fixes  that we know some users have already picked up.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=10594&customfield_12310200=Regression&fixfor=12314116&resolution=1&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC

> 
> It also has many other useful fixes.
> 
> If we restart 10.5.2,  my guess is it will take about 4 weeks. Two  to fix DERBY-4331
and two to restart the vote and test cycle.  The fix may take longer since of course we don't
know much yet.
> 
> If we post 10.5.2.0 and start immediately on a 10.5.3.0, we could hopefully get it out
in about 6 weeks. Four weeks for bug fixing and two for the vote and testing.
> 
> I think a stern warning on the 10.5.2.0 will help mitigate any problems from DERBY-4331
and allow users to make their own choice and possibly benefit from the fixes in 10.5.2.0. 
Mike mentioned that perhaps there will be a workaround for DERBY-4331, to add extra columns
to the order by. If that is the case we could post that too.
> 
> I think we have educated users who given the proper information can decide for themselves 
whether to wait for 10.5.3 if given sufficient information. If I hear no objections I will
continue with the 10.5.2.0 release process this afternoon.
> 
> Kathey
> 
> 


      
Mime
View raw message