You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Kathey Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net> on 2007/11/26 19:55:29 UTC
Please take a look at the release notes for 10.3.2.0
I just checked in the release notes and changes files for the 10.3.2.0.
One thing I noticed is that none of the issues have release notes.
Please let me know right away if any issues are missing, release notes
are needed or you see any other problems with the release notes.
Thanks
Kathey
Sending CHANGES.html
Sending RELEASE-NOTES.html
Sending releaseSummary.xml
Transmitting file data ...
Committed revision 598379.
Re: Please take a look at the release notes for 10.3.2.0
Posted by Knut Anders Hatlen <Kn...@Sun.COM>.
John Embretsen <Jo...@Sun.COM> writes:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>> Kathey Marsden wrote:
>>> For the next round of release notes I was thinking of this
>>> wording. Let me know if something else would be better:
>
> "JSR 169 - Java ME support was built using Java ME CDC/Foundation
> Specification 1.1 libraries from IBM WebSphere Everyplace Micro
> Environment 6.1"
>
> (from 10.3.2.1 release notes)
>
> Much better, thanks!
I'm nit-picking, I know, but since the Java ME libraries are passive
components, perhaps "built against" is better than "built using"? I'm
not a native speaker, but I would have used those two terms like this:
"I've built Derby *using* the [your-favourite-compiler-here] compiler
*against* the [your-favourite-library-here] libraries."
--
Knut Anders
Re: Please take a look at the release notes for 10.3.2.0
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
John Embretsen wrote:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>> Kathey Marsden wrote:
>>> For the next round of release notes I was thinking of this wording.
>>> Let me know if something else would be better:
>
> "JSR 169 - Java ME support was built using Java ME CDC/Foundation
> Specification 1.1 libraries from IBM WebSphere Everyplace Micro
> Environment 6.1"
>
> (from 10.3.2.1 release notes)
>
> Much better, thanks!
>
> Is the JSR-169 implementation a part of (what people usually refer to
> as) the CDC/Foundation libraries in WEME 6.1? If the JSR-169 jar is a
> completely separate library, maybe we should mention that as well in the
> next round.
Right, a better wording might be:
Java ME support was built using Java ME CDC/Foundation Specification 1.1
& JSR169 libraries from IBM WebSphere Everyplace Micro Environment 6.1
Dan.
Re: Please take a look at the release notes for 10.3.2.0
Posted by John Embretsen <Jo...@Sun.COM>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Kathey Marsden wrote:
>> For the next round of release notes I was thinking of this wording.
>> Let me know if something else would be better:
"JSR 169 - Java ME support was built using Java ME CDC/Foundation Specification
1.1 libraries from IBM WebSphere Everyplace Micro Environment 6.1"
(from 10.3.2.1 release notes)
Much better, thanks!
Is the JSR-169 implementation a part of (what people usually refer to as) the
CDC/Foundation libraries in WEME 6.1? If the JSR-169 jar is a completely
separate library, maybe we should mention that as well in the next round.
(Both the CDC/Foundation libraries and an implementation of the JSR-169 Optional
Package is required to build Derby's Java ME support).
I would also have added "Profile" after "Foundation" (to match the title of
JSR-46 and -219), but that's no biggie.
--
John
Re: Please take a look at the release notes for 10.3.2.0
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Kathey Marsden wrote:
> John Embretsen wrote:
>> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>>
>>> This is largely the wording which was used in the last 3 releases.
>>> You are right that it would be more clear if it said something like
>>> "J2ME support was built using libraries from IBM J9 ..." We should
>>> sand this down in 10.4.
>>
> For the next round of release notes I was thinking of this wording. Let
> me know if something else would be better:
>
> *"JSR 169* - J2ME support was built using J2ME Foundation Specification
> 1.1 libraries from IBM WebSphere Everyplace Micro Environment 6.1"
The official name for "J2ME" is now "Java ME".
Also replace "Foundation" with "CDC/Foundation"
Dan.
Re: Please take a look at the release notes for 10.3.2.0
Posted by Kathey Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net>.
John Embretsen wrote:
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
>> This is largely the wording which was used in the last 3 releases.
>> You are right that it would be more clear if it said something like
>> "J2ME support was built using libraries from IBM J9 ..." We should
>> sand this down in 10.4.
>
For the next round of release notes I was thinking of this wording. Let
me know if something else would be better:
*"JSR 169* - J2ME support was built using J2ME Foundation Specification
1.1 libraries from IBM WebSphere Everyplace Micro Environment 6.1"
Re: Please take a look at the release notes for 10.3.2.0
Posted by John Embretsen <Jo...@Sun.COM>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> This is largely the wording which was used in the last 3 releases. You
> are right that it would be more clear if it said something like "J2ME
> support was built using libraries from IBM J9 ..." We should sand this
> down in 10.4.
Largely the same, but not quite:
"J2ME support was built using java.sun.com/j2me (j2me_cdc_fp-1_0_2)."
This is perhaps even more unclear to anyone trying to understand or repeat the
build process, if that is one of the purposes of reporting the build
environment. A 10.4 improvement would be nice, yes.
--
John
Re: Please take a look at the release notes for 10.3.2.0
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
John Embretsen wrote:
> Kathey Marsden wrote:
>> I just checked in the release notes and changes files for the
>> 10.3.2.0. One thing I noticed is that none of the issues have
>> release notes. Please let me know right away if any issues are
>> missing, release notes are needed or you see any other problems with
>> the release notes.
>
> One minor thing: Under "Build Environment" it says that
>
> "J2ME support was built using IBM J9 - VM for the Java(TM) platform,
> Version 2.3"
>
> Is this a 100% correct and valid statement? I thought the same javac
> was used for Java ME as for J2SE 1.4 code, just with a different
> classpath based on the value of jsr169compile.classpath in
> ant.properties. This classpath probably included classes obtained from
> an installation of that VM, though, so the statement is not entirely
> incorrect either.
>
> This is not something that should delay a release, I just wanted to
> have a clear understanding of what this statement actually means...
>
>
Hi John,
This is largely the wording which was used in the last 3 releases. You
are right that it would be more clear if it said something like "J2ME
support was built using libraries from IBM J9 ..." We should sand this
down in 10.4.
Regards,
-Rick
Re: Please take a look at the release notes for 10.3.2.0
Posted by John Embretsen <Jo...@Sun.COM>.
Kathey Marsden wrote:
> I just checked in the release notes and changes files for the 10.3.2.0.
> One thing I noticed is that none of the issues have release notes.
> Please let me know right away if any issues are missing, release notes
> are needed or you see any other problems with the release notes.
One minor thing: Under "Build Environment" it says that
"J2ME support was built using IBM J9 - VM for the Java(TM) platform, Version 2.3"
Is this a 100% correct and valid statement? I thought the same javac was used
for Java ME as for J2SE 1.4 code, just with a different classpath based on the
value of jsr169compile.classpath in ant.properties. This classpath probably
included classes obtained from an installation of that VM, though, so the
statement is not entirely incorrect either.
This is not something that should delay a release, I just wanted to have a clear
understanding of what this statement actually means...
--
John
Re: Please take a look at the release notes for 10.3.2.0
Posted by Mamta Satoor <ms...@gmail.com>.
Kathey, I just closed DERBY-2967. I hope the release notes attached to
it will now show up.
thanks,
Mamta
On 11/26/07, Kathey Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Mamta Satoor wrote:
> > It appears from Rick's mail that the release notes will get picked up
> > only if the Jira issue is closed.
> It should show up on the report as long as it is resolved and has a fix
> version of 10.3.1.5 or 10.3.2.0.
>
> Kathey
>
>
>
Re: Please take a look at the release notes for 10.3.2.0
Posted by Kathey Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net>.
Mamta Satoor wrote:
> It appears from Rick's mail that the release notes will get picked up
> only if the Jira issue is closed.
It should show up on the report as long as it is resolved and has a fix
version of 10.3.1.5 or 10.3.2.0.
Kathey
Re: Please take a look at the release notes for 10.3.2.0
Posted by Mamta Satoor <ms...@gmail.com>.
It appears from Rick's mail that the release notes will get picked up
only if the Jira issue is closed. I have release notes attached to
DERBY-2967 but the issue is still open because it will be nice for us
to add a test case for one specific scenario as mentioned in
DERBY-2967. All the engine code and other test cases for DERBY-2967
have already been checked into the 10.3 codeline. So, I will go ahead
and enter a new Jira entry for the test case and close DERBY-2967 so
we can pick up the release notes.
thanks,
Mamta
On 11/26/07, Rick Hillegas <Ri...@sun.com> wrote:
> Kathey Marsden wrote:
> > I just checked in the release notes and changes files for the
> > 10.3.2.0. One thing I noticed is that none of the issues have release
> > notes. Please let me know right away if any issues are missing,
> > release notes are needed or you see any other problems with the
> > release notes.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Kathey
> >
> > Sending CHANGES.html
> > Sending RELEASE-NOTES.html
> > Sending releaseSummary.xml
> > Transmitting file data ...
> > Committed revision 598379.
> >
> >
> >
> Hi Kathey,
>
> Here are a couple items:
>
> 1) DERBY-3086 doesn't appear in the list of fixed issues. I have changed
> this issue from Resolved to Closed and marked the FixVersion field to be
> 10.3.2.0. Hopefully that will make it appear in the query which creates
> your JIRA input.
>
> 2) Ditto for DERBY-3176.
>
> 3) I don't know what to do about DERBY-3083. The regression introduced
> by this issue is fixed although the JIRA itself is a long way from
> resolution.
>
> 4) The syntax of the Issues paragraph is a little broken.
>
> Thanks,
> -Rick
>
Re: Please take a look at the release notes for 10.3.2.0
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
Kathey Marsden wrote:
> I just checked in the release notes and changes files for the
> 10.3.2.0. One thing I noticed is that none of the issues have release
> notes. Please let me know right away if any issues are missing,
> release notes are needed or you see any other problems with the
> release notes.
>
> Thanks
>
> Kathey
>
> Sending CHANGES.html
> Sending RELEASE-NOTES.html
> Sending releaseSummary.xml
> Transmitting file data ...
> Committed revision 598379.
>
>
>
Hi Kathey,
Here are a couple items:
1) DERBY-3086 doesn't appear in the list of fixed issues. I have changed
this issue from Resolved to Closed and marked the FixVersion field to be
10.3.2.0. Hopefully that will make it appear in the query which creates
your JIRA input.
2) Ditto for DERBY-3176.
3) I don't know what to do about DERBY-3083. The regression introduced
by this issue is fixed although the JIRA itself is a long way from
resolution.
4) The syntax of the Issues paragraph is a little broken.
Thanks,
-Rick