I think this is a good approach. Having the project open source solves
some of these nasty "bug-compatibility" issues that can occur with
closed-source projects with Big Customers.
I'll try to add something to this effect in the Wiki page, although it
may already be covered in the Exceptions section.
David
Oystein Grovlen - Sun Norway wrote:
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Remember this is open-source, there are no customers or "important
customers", only users and developers.
If a user doesn't like the solution they have at least two options:
- get involved in the Derby developer community
- patch the source
I prefer the first.
Good point, Dan.
Users of Derby has several options when a new release break their
application:
- Fix their application
- Use the old release (i.e., not upgrade)
- Pay someone (e.g. Sun or IBM) to fix their problem.
- Get involved in the Derby community and suggest a fix to their
problem.
- Patch the source by reverting the fix that causes problem for them.
I am pretty sure that there will case where it is NOT worth the extra
effort by the community to ensure that a specific user is able to upgrade.
I also think it is a violation of the Derby charter to NOT fix bugs or
correct sql-states for compatibility reasons. The Derby charter states
that Derby is standard compliant. If there are cases where it does not
comply to the standard, we have the obligation to fix that.
