Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> Thanks for your comments. Some further remarks follow.
>
> Regards,
> -Rick
>
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
>> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Kathey Marsden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> What happens between September 15 and End of October on the 10.2
>>>> branch?
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> If we fix critical bugs during that time in the 10.2 branch can't they
>>>> go into the release end of October?
>>>>
>>
>>
>> They should be able to. Since we won't have had a GA release (JCP rules)
>> until Mustang ships, it seems any critical bug that we find and fix
>> between Sep 15th and Mustang shipping has the potential to require a new
>> release candidate and new vote. Could even be a database format change.
>>
>>
> Let me work out the implications of this.
>
> o Mustang would ship with a release candidate which the community rejected.
> o The community would approve a later release candidate and promote it
> to GA status.
> o Bug reports would come in against both the rejected candidate bundled
> into Mustang and the approved candidate which was promoted to GA status.
>
> A couple issues come to mind:
>
> o In those bug reports, how would we disambiguate the release
> candidates? We could bump the last digit of the release identifier after
> producing the first candidate. Or we could rely on the full version id
> produced by sysinfo, which contains the subversion revision number.
I think we have bumped the fourth version ("point") digit after
producing a release candidate. That can be done pretty much at any time,
so no issues disambiguating release candidates.
> o The database format change troubles me. What happens if someone
> creates a database with the rejected release candidate bundled with
> Mustang? I think we want that database to play well with the approved
> release candidate which goes GA.
The mid-Sep Derby release candidate will be marked alpha or beta (JCP
rules) so the databases won't upgrade anyway.
Dan.
