db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Myrna van Lunteren <m.v.lunte...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [CANCELLED][VOTE] release
Date Mon, 03 Oct 2011 20:58:10 GMT
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 of
>>>>> identity columns, that is, fallout from DERBY-4437. I am looking at
>>>>> 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 the
>>>>> 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 as
>>>>> sequences. It is likely that the bug is also triggered by the use of
>>>>> sequences, and without more investigation I can't say whether the bug
>>>>> 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 no
>>>> 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 and
>>>> 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 of
>>>>> 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?
> Myrna
Oh dear, I've muddled the numbers again.  I meant for DERBY-4437 to be
backed out of the 10.8 branch.


View raw message