Andrew McIntyre wrote: > On 6/20/06, Kathey Marsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Mike Matrigali wrote: >> >> > I would like to see the fix for DERBY-1392 included in the 10.1.3 >> > release if there is a second release candidate. While the bug >> > is an edge error case, the result is a corrupt db. I believe >> > there is little risk as again the path is not one usually taken. >> > The change has already been fixed in the trunk and the 10.1 branch. >> >> +1 to including DERBY-1392 and thanks so much to Anders for finding and >> fixing this issue! > > Is this a serious enough issue to warrant another release candidate?
I would say no. Although it would have been nice to fix both these bugs, neither of them is an regression. I don't think we should make another RC and start the voting/testing cycle all over again. > Tests that exercise the issue were not contributed along with the fix, > and it would be nice to know that this is an issue that is likely to > be hit in known circumstances. If so, a release note is probably in > order since it supposedly can cause corruption to a database. Yes. 1392 should definitely be documented as a known issue. -- Bernt Marius Johnsen, Database Technology Group, Staff Engineer, Technical Lead Derby/Java DB Sun Microsystems, Trondheim, Norway
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
