Hi Kathey,
That sounds like a useful combination: 10.1.1.0 client against the
mainline server, both running on the 1.4 vm. You see a lot of support
cases and are in a good position to describe the main execution path. I
don't have a lot of perspective here.
Cheers,
-Rick
Kathey Marsden wrote:
Rick Hillegas wrote:
Hi Kathey,
My initial ramblings on this topic start out at the end of August in
the email thread "client/server compatibility testing". There I
worried that over time, the compatibility tests could grow large
(taking maybe 5 minutes per combination) and so, if run for all the
combinations, would make derbyall take too long. That's why we're only
runing one combination as part of derbyall. That combination doesn't
really track a compatibility issue, it just tracks regressions which
might creep into the test as other code changes.
I'm certainly in favor of running all the combinations on a nightly or
weekly basis and as a sanity check when cutting release candidates.
It seems that it would be worthwhile to enable the test with the 10.1
jars (original client release) as it would make a clear statement of
the minimum client/server jar combinations that are expected work, would
probably catch most things that might break over time, and hopefully
would not add too much time.
What do you think?
Kathey
