I'm _hoping_ there aren't holes here. Seems like a reasonable solution...
Andrew McIntyre wrote: > On 6/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> The key is #1. Get it so that you can actually distribute an impl w/ >> proper labeling, and then consider the JDBC4 functionality just one >> minor feature in a much bigger codebase. >> >> Then, since Derby isn't an implementation of JDBC4, but rather it's >> driver is, Derby doesn't have to be labeled according to the JDBC4 spec >> license terms. Just the driver does. >> >> So Derby is a GA, a minor feature (JDBC4) isn't, it's still a feature, >> so it can be updated w/o a dot-version uptick... > > Ah! Got it. > > Thanks, Geir! > > andrew > >
