db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: DERBY-4331 and the release
Date Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:57:55 GMT
I vote for option (1). The next release vehicle looks like a second RC 
to me, not a new release. As I see it, we post releases on our website 
chiefly for the convenience of our users. What user value do we provide 
by continuing to post


Kathey Marsden wrote:
> Dag H. Wanvik wrote:
>> Myrna van Lunteren <m.v.lunteren@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I personally don't care for a release that has either DERBY-3926 or
>>> DERBY-4331 in it.
> Now that we have fixes  for both DERBY-3926 and DERBY4331 in the 
> trunk.  I hope we can restart this discussion with better options, 
> which hopefully will avoid the need for the funny JavaDB non-fork 
> fork.     Current options as I see them. 1) Pull off the 
> website, cut with the fix and short vote with Rick as release 
> manager.
> 2) Move down to the deprecated section.  cut with 
> short vote with Rick as release manager.
> I think I prefer option 2 as we don't try to erase the history of the 
> vote or the release being on the website, but I can accept either 
> approach.
> Kathey

View raw message