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: [CANCELLED][VOTE] release
Date Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:46:42 GMT
On 10/3/11 1:58 PM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Myrna van Lunteren
> <m.v.lunteren@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Rick Hillegas<rick.hillegas@oracle.com>  wrote:
>>> Hi Myrna,
>>> Some comments inline...
>>> On 9/30/11 11:57 AM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Mike Matrigali
>>>> <mikem_app@sbcglobal.net>    wrote:
>>>>> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/29/11 6:22 PM, Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>> I'm now officially cancelling the vote for as a release
>>>>>>> candidate.
>>>>>>> The reasons are the issues which I updated to blocker:
>>>>>>> DERBY-5430
>>>>>>> DERBY-5422
>>>>>> Hi Myrna,
>>>>>> I believe these are both consequences of increasing the concurrency
>>>>>> identity columns, that is, fallout from DERBY-4437. I am looking
>>>>>> DERBY-5430 now. I intend to look at DERBY-5422 now that you have
>>>>>> demonstrated that it is not fixed by the patch for DERBY-5423.
>>>>>> I don't think I will be able to wrap up both bugs next week since
I will
>>>>>> be busy at Java One. Here are some options to consider:
>>>>>> 1) Back out the port of DERBY-4437 to 10.8 and continue debugging
>>>>>> issues on the trunk. I am not confident that this will fix DERBY-5422.
>>>>>> think that bug is triggered by the use of identity columns in NsTest
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> bug appears because identities now use the same preallocation logic
>>>>>> sequences. It is likely that the bug is also triggered by the use
>>>>>> sequences, and without more investigation I can't say whether the
bug is
>>>>>> even new to 10.8.2.
>>>>> Given the number of issues that have surfaced in this testing round
>>>>> related
>>>>> to backport of identity enhancement I would lean toward backing out the
>>>>> backport of 4437, cut a new release candidate and verify that nstest
>>>>> longer sees new issues.  I believe even without 4437 the proposed release
>>>>> would be a marked improvement for apache 10.8 users.
>>>>> Concurrently work on the issues in trunk.   And we can cut another 10.8
>>>>> bug fix release down the line when we have had time to fix the issues
>>>>> run some long term stress testing to verify the identity behavior which
>>>>> will
>>>>> affect many existing users.
>>>>>   From my reading of the code I agree with rick that the remaining issues
>>>>> are
>>>>> not specific to identity and also affect sequences.   So likely we
>>>>> will want to backport fixes made to 10.8 for sequences.  It may be
>>>>> interesting to either add sequences to nstest or fork a copy that
>>>>> substitutes them to verify that the issue is not particular to identity.
>>>>> It would be also valuable if we could produce some tests that reproduce
>>>>> the issues much more reliably than nstest.
>>>>>> 2) Hope that someone else can pick up DERBY-5422 while I look at
>>>>>> DERBY-5430.
>>>>>> 3) Wait a couple weeks for the next RC to give me time to fix both
>>>>>> these bugs.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> -Rick
>>>> Thanks for your input Rick, Mike.
>>>> I think Rick has come a long way in fixing a number of issues
>>>> resulting from DERBY-4377. And it appears to me that backing out
>>>> DERBY-4377 is also a considerable effort at this time? (I assume this
>>>> means we then need to back out also DERBY-5408, doc issue DERBY-5307
>>>> (do we loose the need for derby.language.preallocator property if we
>>>> back this out?), DERBY-5423? How about DERBY-4565?).
>>> I think we would need to back out the following commits:
>>> DERBY-4437 1141645: This is the master commit which ported most of the 10.9
>>> changes to 10.8
>>> DERBY-4437 1142052: This commit ported an upgrade test from 10.9 to 10.8.
>>> The test verifies the new identity behavior.
>>> DERBY-5307 1141651: This commit ported documentation of the
>>> derby.language.sequence.preallocator property from 10.9 docs to 10.8 docs.
>>> Note that the property still has meaning for sequences although the property
>>> would be less capable after backing out 1141645.
>>> DERBY-5408 1170178: This commit ported the localization fixes for the 2200H
>>> message from 10.9 to the 10.8 branch.
>>> DERBY-5426 1174297: This commit ported some SequenceUpdater changes from
>>> 10.9 to the 10.8 branch. The changes improved the error reporting when there
>>> was too much contention on an identity column.
>>> I don't think that we need to back out the following work:
>>> DERBY-5423: Nothing to do here. This issue was resolved because of the work
>>> on DERBY-5426.
>>> DERBY-4565: Nothing to do here. All of this work made it into
>>>> Rick, do you think you could have a handle on DERBY-5430 say - within
>>>> a week? How much time/effort would backing out DERBY-4377 take?
>>> I've made good progress today but I can't promise that I'll understand the
>>> problem by the end of next week. Next week I will be busy at Java One. I
>>> think it's likely I will understand what's broken by the end of the
>>> following week.
>>> If all goes well, it would take a day to back out DERBY-4437. If all doesn't
>>> go well, it could take longer.
>>> I don't think I will have time to adequately test an RC which is produced
>>> during the week of Java One.
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Rick
>>>> I'm not happy to spin a release with only nstest to detect DERBY-5422.
>>>> Would a week more time give someone the opportunity to analyze the
>>>> problem and come up with a repro? Is there anyone interested/willing
>>>> to attempt a repro for either of these two issues?
>>>> Myrna
>> Thank you for the information Rick,
>> I think at this time I'd like for DERBY-4377 to be backed out.
>> Do you have time to tackle this task now?
Hi Myrna,

I think I can start tackling this on Thursday.

>> Myrna
> Oh dear, I've muddled the numbers again.  I meant for DERBY-4437 to be
> backed out of the 10.8 branch.
> Myrna

View raw message