Satheesh Bandaram wrote: >Kathey Marsden wrote: > > > >>Satheesh Bandaram wrote: >> >> >>I think on this one, we just need to get the DERBY-1076 patch >>committed. >> >not sure if adding of new tests should stop development >that passes current Derby checkin criteria of clean derbyAll. > > >
I think if an area has regressions, significant quality issues, poor test coverage or is a significant risk area it is appropriate for anyone in the community to raise objections to new functionality being added to that area until the core quality issues are addressed. Upgrade is particularly sensitive because if not working, the resolution may require time travel to resolve. Since there was no infrastructure in place to handle upgrade changes of metadata, it had outstanding regressions, and it has traditionally been an area of serious issue I asked Knut to wait and he agreed., probably because he agrees with the six core principals of the "Apache Way" especially the one about "consistently high quality software". http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html >>The blockage was based on the fact that we once had an irreconcilable >>downgrade bug and seemed to be set up for that again. >> >> >What was the code change that caused this problem in 5.1? You have >provided symptoms of the problem. It would be good to understand the >code change that cause this symptom. > > > The code change was that in 5.1.60 there were new classes and methods that were added and referred to in the metadata SQL queries. Going back to the previous version, the metadata queries were still there but the classes and methods were not, so it caused this failure. In the 10.1 codeline, this means that no new functions or syntax not compatible with older versions can be added to the queries. Adding the drop on version change except for read only databases seems the safest thing here to me. It seems like it will be a long time before we have a 10.2 release, who knows what will go in the 10.1 codeline. >Again, I am not sure if DERBY-1107 should stop metadata developments. >Wasn't this "issue" present from the beginning? > > > It is a serious outstanding issue with the handling of metadata changes. It would be good to see it resolved soon, because it is again one possibly needing time travel to resolve, but isn't stopping any metadata changes from going in now. Kathey
