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: DERBY 10.9.2 release, was: DERBY 10.9.1.0 release
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2013 17:30:22 GMT
Thanks for this feedback, Kathey. I expect that I will volunteer to 
manage the 10.10 release later this year. When I do that, I will keep 
your notes in mind and see what I can do to improve the instructions. 
Some comments inline...


On 2/1/13 9:09 AM, Katherine Marsden wrote:
> On 1/31/2013 10:19 AM, Rick Hillegas wrote:
>> Hi Lily,
>>
>> I think you're talking about a 10.9.2 release. Can you let us know 
>> which parts of the release instructions seem more complicated? I can 
>> help improve the instructions if you let me know which parts are most 
>> confusing.
>>
> I think in terms of the documentation (and the process)  I noticed 
> several  major themes in my failed attempts to put a release 
> together.  I am sorry I did not take better notes in detail.
>
> 1) The process seems fragile on Windows.
> DERBY-5461, DERBY-5463, DERBY-5460 and difficulty integrating an 
> md5sum tool combined with the chaining of steps together and problems 
> restarting if something fail due to the  made my build something of a 
> patch work effort, but I did get it out  by working around these 
> issues.  On the publication, there is was trouble on windows due to 
> line endings. I don't really like the fact that it tried to svn commit 
> without letting me review my change.
Thanks for listing these bugs. I will try to take a look at them before 
I generate 10.10.
>
> 2)  It would be good to make the documentation more concise.
> It is somewhat  long, winding and repetitive. There is not a clear 
> numbering system for the steps and  I found I would struggle through 
> with a step that was briefly mentioned only to find I should have done 
> it later and was  given more detailed  information.   The interleaving 
> of instructions from old releases makes it confusing too. I think it 
> would be ok to just take this out prior to 10.9, but have to admit 
> sometimes having the old instructions was helpful in moving forward.
One approach I've started experimenting with is this: remove the 
instructions for old releases and, instead, direct the user to an older 
rev of the wiki page if old instructions are needed.
>
>
> 3)The process itself seems more complicated and extensive.
>  Maybe this is again just a function of one and two and the fact that 
> every time I got an afternoon to look at it, I would collide with 
> something else,  but the process itself seems to have become more 
> complicated and extensive. (was it 22 pages vs 4 or 5 when I did a 
> 10.5 release?)
This one might be cleared up by removing the old instructions as 
described above. Without the old instructions, we can judge better 
whether the improvements over the last few years have really simplified 
the process or just moved the complexity around.

Thanks,
-Rick
>
> I would say at least stay away from Windows if trying to make a 
> release, but I don't think  that is an option for Lily.
>
> Best
>
> Kathey
>
>> Thanks,
>> -Rick
>>
>> On 1/31/13 9:51 AM, Lily Wei wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> The release process and procedure had definitely turns out to be 
>>> more involved than I participated. Compare to the previous release I 
>>> did, I have to say I am having problem just follow the instruction.
>>>
>>> Derby is a wonderful product and technology to be more involved. 
>>> Therefore, I am seeking help from Derby developers. If I can do the 
>>> build for 10.9.1.0, can someone else help me with publishing and 
>>> rest of the tasks? For a minimum, we definitely should have clear 
>>> instruction for more Derby developers to follow. Hopefully, easy to 
>>> follow steps and procedure can proceed most of the time.
>>>
>>> Any suggestion is welcome.
>>>
>>> Thank you so much,
>>>
>>> Lily
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


Mime
View raw message