Hi Bryan,
Thanks for working on this big patch. I did look at what was then the
latest patch and posted my thumbs-up on April 13. You re-factored the
code so that it's smaller, more extensible, and easier to follow. You
also moved the plan-bearing tables out of the system schemas into user
schemas. Those two changes addressed my large-scale concerns. And you
addressed my smallish concern about trimming the sql text. What remains
from my earlier reviews is my stylistic nit about replacing some magic
numbers with manifest constants.
Your question may be directed at other reviewers, but if you need
additional feedback from me, please let me know where I should focus my
attention and how I can be helpful.
Thanks,
-Rick
Bryan Pendleton wrote:
I'm considering moving forward with the latest patch proposal
for DERBY-2487. There is still a lot of work left to do here,
but I think I can do it after the first patch has been committed
to the trunk.
Does anybody think they will have time to study the patch and
offer any feedback? I'm particularly interested in large issues
that need to be addressed prior to moving this work to the trunk,
but any feedback is welcome.
There's no particular rush to get the work submitted, but on the
other hand it's a large patch and I'd like to get the work into
the trunk, if we're going to do that, before any substantial new
work on other projects gets underway, to avoid unnecessary
amounts of merging (though the merge risk is a lot less now that
the patch isn't trying to add new system catalogs).
So I'm just sounding out the community for opinions about when
might be a reasonable point to consider committing this work
into the trunk.
thanks,
bryan
