I vote for option (1). The next release vehicle looks like a second RC
to me, not a new release. As I see it, we post releases on our website
chiefly for the convenience of our users. What user value do we provide
by continuing to post 10.5.2.0?
Thanks,
-Rick
Kathey Marsden wrote:
Dag H. Wanvik wrote:
Myrna van Lunteren <[email protected]> writes:
I personally don't care for a release that has either DERBY-3926 or
DERBY-4331 in it.
Now that we have fixes for both DERBY-3926 and DERBY4331 in the
trunk. I hope we can restart this discussion with better options,
which hopefully will avoid the need for the funny JavaDB non-fork
fork. Current options as I see them. 1) Pull 10.5.2.0 off the
website, cut 10.5.2.1 with the fix and short vote with Rick as release
manager.
2) Move 10.5.2.0 down to the deprecated section. cut 10.5.3.0 with
short vote with Rick as release manager.
I think I prefer option 2 as we don't try to erase the history of the
vote or the release being on the website, but I can accept either
approach.
Kathey
