reviewing patches? (was: Re: Regression checkbox (was Re: Can we change SQL State?))
Great! Now that we have the check boxes in place, would anyone care to review the actual patches ? :-) Andreas David W. Van Couvering wrote: Great, thanks for the quick attention to this! David Andrew McIntyre wrote: On 3/31/06, Kathey Marsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It is the other way around. ":Existing Application Impact" is for things that are not regressions but rather intentional behaviour changes or fixes that might affect existing applications. An example might be a bug fix that made Derby comply with standard behaviour where it did not before.It may have existing application impact but is not a regression. Ah, I see. I don't think that was clear from the previous comments. I've added a checkbox for that as well. andrew
Re: Regression checkbox (was Re: Can we change SQL State?)
Great, thanks for the quick attention to this! David Andrew McIntyre wrote: On 3/31/06, Kathey Marsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It is the other way around. ":Existing Application Impact" is for things that are not regressions but rather intentional behaviour changes or fixes that might affect existing applications. An example might be a bug fix that made Derby comply with standard behaviour where it did not before.It may have existing application impact but is not a regression. Ah, I see. I don't think that was clear from the previous comments. I've added a checkbox for that as well. andrew
Re: Regression checkbox (was Re: Can we change SQL State?)
On 3/31/06, Kathey Marsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It is the other way around. ":Existing Application Impact" is for > things that are not regressions but rather intentional behaviour > changes or fixes that might affect existing applications. An example > might be a bug fix that made Derby comply with standard behaviour where > it did not before.It may have existing application impact but is not > a regression. Ah, I see. I don't think that was clear from the previous comments. I've added a checkbox for that as well. andrew
Re: Regression checkbox (was Re: Can we change SQL State?)
Andrew McIntyre wrote: >On 3/31/06, David W. Van Couvering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>I think notification is great. I don't understand why what you are >>suggesting should be "components" they really seem to me to make sense >>as checkboxes -- how are these "components" of the system? Andrew, can >>you explain? >> >> > >I had misunderstood Kathey's request earlier. I agree that checkboxes >for this behavior would be good to have to flag issues as regressive >behavior, with an additional checkbox for release notes impact, and >leaving the Regression Test Failure component specifically for test >failures. I'm wondering though, if "Existing Application Impact" is >perhaps redundant? In what situations would a behavior be a >regression, need specific mentioning in the release notes, and not >have an impact on existing applications? > > > It is the other way around. ":Existing Application Impact" is for things that are not regressions but rather intentional behaviour changes or fixes that might affect existing applications. An example might be a bug fix that made Derby comply with standard behaviour where it did not before.It may have existing application impact but is not a regression. Kathey
Re: Regression checkbox (was Re: Can we change SQL State?)
On 3/31/06, Andrew McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I had misunderstood Kathey's request earlier. I agree that checkboxes > for this behavior would be good to have to flag issues as regressive > behavior, with an additional checkbox for release notes impact, and > leaving the Regression Test Failure component specifically for test > failures. Sorry for the JIRA blast, I needed to move the issues with Patch Available to a new custom field so that we could add additional checkboxes. But, seems like a good opportunity for the committers to review the issues with patches available. andrew
Regression checkbox (was Re: Can we change SQL State?)
On 3/31/06, David W. Van Couvering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think notification is great. I don't understand why what you are > suggesting should be "components" they really seem to me to make sense > as checkboxes -- how are these "components" of the system? Andrew, can > you explain? I had misunderstood Kathey's request earlier. I agree that checkboxes for this behavior would be good to have to flag issues as regressive behavior, with an additional checkbox for release notes impact, and leaving the Regression Test Failure component specifically for test failures. I'm wondering though, if "Existing Application Impact" is perhaps redundant? In what situations would a behavior be a regression, need specific mentioning in the release notes, and not have an impact on existing applications? andrew