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: 10.7.1 release notes and buddy testing
Date Fri, 12 Nov 2010 20:14:51 GMT
Dag H. Wanvik wrote:
> Hi,
> thanks for preparing the release notes, Rick! Some notes
> - title: Derby -> Apache Derby. Same in first line in overview.
> - new features, bullet one: "privileges" and "permissions" are both
>   used in the same sentence. Choose one form, I suggest privileges.
>   Bullet five: "remote clients" -> Applications using the Derby network
>   client driver
> - unicode -> Unicode
> - ascii -> ASCII
> - bug fixes: should we include Test category bugs at all? I am not sure
>   that is interesting to end users.
I blow hot and cold on this one. We seem to have settled into the 
pattern of including a lot of bug fixes which most users are not 
interested in, including:

1) fixes to the tests and build scripts

2) fixes to bugs which were corrected in the mainline before a user ever 
saw them

3) incremental subtasks of features

It might be worth re-opening the discussion about what should go into 
the release notes for 10.8. I can imagine oddball users and loosely 
involved developers who might be interested in all of the above topics, 
but I agree that most users would consider these issues to be noise 
which obscures the signal in the release notes.

One good property of noisy release notes is that the JIRA filter is easy 
to write. If we want a tighter filter, then I would like to insist that 
the filter be expressible in JIRA. I would argue that post-processing 
the JIRA results is a brittle, time-consuming task which isn't worth the 


> - issues:
>   DERBY-4786: It is a big confusing that we speak of Derby 10.4 and
>   higher, when one would expect to see 10.7. I guess this is because we
>   have backported it... Note required?
>   DERBY-4777: The wording implies that user could rely on particular SQL
>   states from Derby. In general, I believed we make no such guarantees. If
>   that is still the case, a caveat is in order, I think.
>   E.g. ".... in Client mode, 'ERROR 42X30' should be expected."
>   DERBY-4577: "Summary of change" is logically backwards: It states that
>   the changes is that "An update statement will fail with..."  The real
>   change is "On a new database, an UPDATE statement will no longer ever
>   give "nospc.U". On an old database, after calling SYSCS_COMPRESS_TABLE
>   on it, an UPDATE statement will no longer ever give "nospc.U"... The
>   problem applies for section "Symptoms seen..".
>   insures -> ensures
> Thanks,
> Dag

View raw message