db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mamta Satoor <msat...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: DERBY-4331 and the 10.5.2.0 release
Date Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:23:35 GMT
I am looking at DERBY-4331. I just wanted to share though that I had
made plans to be on vacation in August before this bug surfaced and
hence will not be able to work on the bug full time for the most of
August. Hopefully the bug will not take that long but wanted to give a
heads up. Apologies for the bad timing of vacation plans and this
bug....
Mamta

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Mike Matrigali<mikem_app@sbcglobal.net> 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?  If  we do abort, I won't be able to be release
>> manager as I am going out on vacation for a few weeks on August 15.
>>
>> Another issue is that DERBY-3926 which introduced the regression was not
>> listed in the release notes because it was still open.  One possible option
>> is to add a release note to that issue now and manually update the release
>> notes on the website (not in the distribution) to  include DERBY-3926 and
>> warn about DERBY-4331.  Then start working on another 10.5 release to be
>> released fairly soon (a couple months).
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Kathey
>>
> Since the vote passed, I lean toward posting the release with a warning
> about 4331 - and also think we should fast track another release on top
> of it if we can get someone to fix 4331.  A lot of people reviewed 3926 and
> it has been out there for awhile so I real rather not back it out as that
> also will result in queries with wrong sort order.  I may change
> my opinion if we can identify that 3926 was a bad fix.
>
> I can volunteer some immediate time looking at the bad query plans and
> trying to come up with some simpler test cases.  Once I get set up I will
> also post a workaround if the usual thing works, which is to add some
> columns to the order by clause as I assume the problem is bad
> sort avoidance rather than an actual sorter problem.
>
>

Mime
View raw message