> > What's the right thing to do here? Should we re-open DERBY-614 and > have me work on that as a separate item? Or is it adequate just to > include > > splitQRYDTA = null; > > in your changes for DERBY-210? > > I suspect that the change really belongs with DERBY-614, but it's > going to be a blocker for you and it will take me some time to > develop and test a completely separate patch with focused repro, etc. > > What do you suggest?
I think it would be better to do it as part of DERBY-614 since it belongs there. In case we need to port DERBY-614 to 10.1, all changes will be in one place. Since it is clear that the field needs to be reset and the overhead of making a repro is so signifcant, I don't think we need a separate test for this. We will need to run the test suites to just confirm this does not break anything. If this is okay, I can create a patch and upload it to DERBY-614. Thanks, Deepa
