Daniel John Debrunner wrote: >I think as Jean said keeping and changing subject lines to reflect the >true discussion is vital. I don't think we do a good job here. I think >sometimes we continue a discussion as Jira comments when really it has >expanded to be a wider topic than that specific Jira entry. For example >there is some discussion about metadata queries and backwards/forwards >comptability (I think) but it's hidden in one of the non-descript JBDC >4.0 Jira entries "add blah blah methods to blah blah class". > > > I can see your point at one level. The issue of metadata maintenance came up first last December in the context of DERBY-573 and perhaps that was masked to the folks interested in the topic.
http://www.nabble.com/-PATCH-%28DERBY-573%29-Provide-support-for-optimizer-overrides-in-Derby-t517576.html#a1867453 On the other hand, in the context of many Jira issues, long term maintainability issues have come up. Often the patch may not introduce a regression today but might create a state where it is impossible to fix a bug in the future, extremely difficult to maintain, impact rarely tested jvm/derby combinations, or require some sort of general infrastructure that is missing . Examples are, maintenance of metadata, maintenance of client/server compatibility, maintenance issues associated with sharing a class, handling of partially implemented features at release time etc. In the scratch your own itch world I have found that usually the person working on a single Jira entry doesn't want to address these global issues, but I think that it is their responsibility to make sure that the long term maintenance impact of their specific change is addressed and to that extent the conversation belongs in the bug. Kathey
