reviewing patches? (was: Re: Regression checkbox (was Re: Can we change SQL State?))

2006-04-03 Thread Andreas Korneliussen
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?)

2006-03-31 Thread David W. Van Couvering

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?)

2006-03-31 Thread Andrew McIntyre
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?)

2006-03-31 Thread Kathey Marsden
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?)

2006-03-31 Thread Andrew McIntyre
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?)

2006-03-31 Thread Andrew McIntyre
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