Rick Hillegas wrote:
I see your point. DERBY-1777 doesn't indicate that the defect occurs in 10.1.3. However, I see now that DERBY-1633 and DERBY-1681 do. Perhaps I should share more of my calculus with you:
<snip all very good points>
I'm happy to hear arguments about why this issue should hold up the release.
No, no arguments at all. Sorry if it sounded like I was looking for a reversal of your decision. I wasn't debating the decision, just looking for clarification about 1) why 1866 didn't make the cut but the others did, and 2) how (or if) we make the user-base aware of the regression.
I think you've answered both of those questions--so thanks! Carry on, carry on... Army
