Rick Hillegas wrote: > 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. > I think trunk server with 10.1.1.0 client and trunk client with 10.1.1.0 server with whatever jvm the developer is using for derbyall would provide a good basic sanity check for protocol compatibility with client and server changes on the trunk.
Ultimately as yous say someone would be well advised to run derbyall with the various clients on the branches before releases. Kathey
