db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <rick.hille...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: Contents of the source bundle
Date Tue, 04 May 2010 13:13:08 GMT
Kristian Waagan wrote:
> On 03.05.10 21:36, Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> Hi Kristian,
>> Some comments inline...
>> Kristian Waagan wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> When testing the source bundle(s), I noticed:
>>> a) the contents .zip and the tar.gz are equal (a good thing)
>> Hooray!
>>> b) we include the maven directory, but not the maven2 directory
>>> (see DERBY-4632, the Maven 1 files are suggested deleted)
>>> Should we include maven2 and exclude maven, or remove it
>> Thanks for pointing this out. I have corrected the release-building
>> targets to include maven2 but not the original maven directory which you
>> are going to deprecate.
>>> c) we don't include any IDE files/projects. Is this intentional?
>> Thanks to you and Knut for drawing my attention to DERBY-3857. I also
>> corrected the release building targets to pull in the ide subtree.
> Thanks, Rick.
> A next step here (independent of what you improved now), is to make 
> sure the IDE project files are in a good state. Maybe we get more 
> feedback on this now that we're including the files in the src bundle.
>> I notice that DERBY-3857 was open for a long time even though the fix
>> was trivial. I don't think that the category "build tools" is specific
>> enough to get the attention of our release managers. Maybe we need to
>> flag these issues with a keyword to distinguish release-generation
>> issues from ordinary defects in our cumbersome build.
> +1
> Is this new keyword already documented in the release process wiki page?
Thanks for the reminder. I have added another step, mentioning this tag, 
to the following section of the release instructions: 

>>> I also tried building Derby on various system, and except for some
>>> build automagic issues and an ant issue, this worked fine using the
>>> source bundle.
>> I don't feel that these defects warrant a re-spin by themselves.
>> However, I merged the release-building changes to the 10.6 branch in
>> case we need another candidate.
> I completely agree, I'm just working my way through issues I 
> discovered during testing of the RC.
> I do however observe some hangs (client/server), but only a few tests 
> seem to be affected on a few specific platforms / JVMs (I'll add more 
> information soon).
> Thanks,

View raw message