Re: FYI: Planning to upgrade to Derby 10.1.3 for the Geronimo 1.1.1 release (GERONIMO-2155)
+1 for trunk. For the branches/1.1.1 would this be in the vein of fixing bugs? I'm fine with doing it but often times a simple version number change ends up uncovering integration issues. Let's give it a go. Who was going to do the work and does anyone think we need a JIRA for 1.1.1 ? Might be nice as a heads up in the Release notes section and a JIRA automatically gets included. Jacek Laskowski wrote: On 7/7/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the "Derby library does not have line number debug information" mail thread [1] a few weeks ago I asked whether people wanted to upgrade to the Derby 10.1.3 maintenance release [2]. David Jencks was the only person who mentioned it should go in the 1.1.1 release but did not hear any objections from others. If anyone disagrees with this plan, please speak up before I start looking into this next week. +1 plus committing the change to trunk that I think is implied by default to any modification to any branch. Jacek
Re: FYI: Planning to upgrade to Derby 10.1.3 for the Geronimo 1.1.1 release (GERONIMO-2155)
On 7/7/06, John Sisson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In the "Derby library does not have line number debug information" mail thread [1] a few weeks ago I asked whether people wanted to upgrade to the Derby 10.1.3 maintenance release [2]. David Jencks was the only person who mentioned it should go in the 1.1.1 release but did not hear any objections from others. If anyone disagrees with this plan, please speak up before I start looking into this next week. +1 plus committing the change to trunk that I think is implied by default to any modification to any branch. Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: FYI: Planning to upgrade to Derby 10.1.3 for the Geronimo 1.1.1 release (GERONIMO-2155)
Is there more to it that just changing the dependency versions? --jason On Jul 7, 2006, at 6:25 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: On Jul 6, 2006, at 11:04 PM, John Sisson wrote: In the "Derby library does not have line number debug information" mail thread [1] a few weeks ago I asked whether people wanted to upgrade to the Derby 10.1.3 maintenance release [2]. David Jencks was the only person who mentioned it should go in the 1.1.1 release but did not hear any objections from others. If anyone disagrees with this plan, please speak up before I start looking into this next week. John [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg25051.html [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-user/ 200607.mbox/% [EMAIL PROTECTED] IMO, it fixes/improves our ability to diagnose derby-related problems. So, sounds good to me. Upgrading such a core dependency does imply that we must run all compliance tests on 1.1.1. Something I think we all expect to do anyway... I don't anticipate any problems. However, if we see many problems related to this change, we may want to consider reverting... I'd rather see an early 1.1.1 rather than a delayed 1.1.1 with derby line numbers... --kevan
Re: FYI: Planning to upgrade to Derby 10.1.3 for the Geronimo 1.1.1 release (GERONIMO-2155)
On Jul 6, 2006, at 11:04 PM, John Sisson wrote: In the "Derby library does not have line number debug information" mail thread [1] a few weeks ago I asked whether people wanted to upgrade to the Derby 10.1.3 maintenance release [2]. David Jencks was the only person who mentioned it should go in the 1.1.1 release but did not hear any objections from others. If anyone disagrees with this plan, please speak up before I start looking into this next week. John [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg25051.html [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-user/ 200607.mbox/% [EMAIL PROTECTED] IMO, it fixes/improves our ability to diagnose derby-related problems. So, sounds good to me. Upgrading such a core dependency does imply that we must run all compliance tests on 1.1.1. Something I think we all expect to do anyway... I don't anticipate any problems. However, if we see many problems related to this change, we may want to consider reverting... I'd rather see an early 1.1.1 rather than a delayed 1.1.1 with derby line numbers... --kevan
Re: FYI: Planning to upgrade to Derby 10.1.3 for the Geronimo 1.1.1 release (GERONIMO-2155)
Jason Dillon wrote: Seems reasonable to me. This will also go into trunk? Definitely :-) Regards, John --jason On Jul 6, 2006, at 8:04 PM, John Sisson wrote: In the "Derby library does not have line number debug information" mail thread [1] a few weeks ago I asked whether people wanted to upgrade to the Derby 10.1.3 maintenance release [2]. David Jencks was the only person who mentioned it should go in the 1.1.1 release but did not hear any objections from others. If anyone disagrees with this plan, please speak up before I start looking into this next week. John [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg25051.html [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-user/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FYI: Planning to upgrade to Derby 10.1.3 for the Geronimo 1.1.1 release (GERONIMO-2155)
Seems reasonable to me. This will also go into trunk? --jason On Jul 6, 2006, at 8:04 PM, John Sisson wrote: In the "Derby library does not have line number debug information" mail thread [1] a few weeks ago I asked whether people wanted to upgrade to the Derby 10.1.3 maintenance release [2]. David Jencks was the only person who mentioned it should go in the 1.1.1 release but did not hear any objections from others. If anyone disagrees with this plan, please speak up before I start looking into this next week. John [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg25051.html [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-user/ 200607.mbox/% [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FYI: Planning to upgrade to Derby 10.1.3 for the Geronimo 1.1.1 release (GERONIMO-2155)
In the "Derby library does not have line number debug information" mail thread [1] a few weeks ago I asked whether people wanted to upgrade to the Derby 10.1.3 maintenance release [2]. David Jencks was the only person who mentioned it should go in the 1.1.1 release but did not hear any objections from others. If anyone disagrees with this plan, please speak up before I start looking into this next week. John [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@geronimo.apache.org/msg25051.html [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/db-derby-user/200607.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
