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: meaning of the two unreleased 10.8.1 versions
Date Wed, 15 Jun 2011 17:49:22 GMT
Thanks for the quick responses, Knut and Mike. I have merged 


On 6/14/11 2:58 PM, Mike Matrigali wrote:
> I believe after a discussion on the list it was agreed that any
> committer could "bump" the version number in the branch for their
> own reasons.  The expectation was that  the number of versions
> would be reasonable and we would revisit if it seemed it was being
> abused.
> So far I think the only bumps have been associated with bug fixes
> in the branch where the bump was necessary to force the soft upgrade
> mechanism to fix some problem in compiled saved plans.  Open source
> users of Derby are allowed to take and build the branch code and make
> their own releases.  In this case those users may have a version
> of to report a bug against, though it would be more useful
> in almost all cases if the bug were reported against the most recent
> official release and only reported against if a regression was
> introduced into the branch after the release.
> I think it less likely that
> users would need to report a bug fixed against
> Knut Anders Hatlen wrote:
>> Rick Hillegas <rick.hillegas@oracle.com> writes:
>>> In addition to the well-defined release version, there are
>>> two unreleased 10.8.1 versions in JIRA now: and Are
>>> both of these versions necessary or can be merged into
>> was the version number given to the head of the branch after
>> was produced. The version number was later bumped to
>> so that upgrade would work for those following the branch after
>> DERBY-3870. Fixes that go into the 10.8 branch now should have
>> as the fix version.
>> It is probably OK to merge into to reduce the size of
>> the drop-down list. Previously, I think we've only merged versions when
>> we produced a new release, but I don't see much value in keeping
>> as a distinct version in the bug tracker. It looks like we have
>> similar situations on 10.1, 10.5 and 10.6.

View raw message