10.2 High value fix candidates (unassigned10.2 issues)

[Kathey Marsden <km...@sbcglobal.net>]

We talked about using the normal/low urgency  unassigned 10.2 issues to 
track high value 10.2 bug fix candidates that can be fixed in the 
release timeframe..  Probably time to weed down that list.  Question: 
What date should I now use for this assessment?  

There are 63 unassigned  10.2 fix candidates  [1]
I  looked  briefly through the  code issues.  Of these I think the 
following two are very high value  fix candidates (with my personal 
prejudice toward supportablity)

DERBY-1641 - Conglomerate requested does not exist after 
syscs_import_table with FK
DERBY-1275 -  Provide a way to enable client tracing without changing 
the application

This doc change  I know would be extremely high value as 1 added 
sentence would save a boat load of user questions. 
DERBY-1570 -  The derby configuration, logging and diagnostic properties 
such as derby.language.logStatementText are hard to find in the 
documentation  (just a quick sentence to add,  that can save a lot of 
user questions)

I'd also like to keep this issue on the 10.2 list because I think it is 
planned for 10.2 even though it is not yet assigned.
DERBY-634 - Subquery materialization can cause stack overflow

I think all but a very small high value list can be moved to 10.2.2.0 
with of course the understanding that those bugs can be fixed too if 
there is time.
It will help remove noise as folks pick bugs to fix.

What other issues would folks like to keep on the unassigned 10.2  list?


Thanks

Kathey
[1] 10.2 Unassigned issues:
http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=10594&resolution=-1&fixfor=11187&assigneeSelect=unassigned&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC

Re: 10.2 High value fix candidates (unassigned10.2 issues)

[Laura Stewart <sc...@gmail.com>]

Hi David -

I am planning on documenting this feature in the next few days...

On 8/10/06, David Van Couvering <Da...@sun.com> wrote:

<snip>
> DERBY-1551 - Update documentation to indicate procedures can be called
> from triggers (DERBY-551).  I think this is a key enhancement and should
> be more than an undocumented feature.

-- 
Laura Stewart

Re: 10.2 High value fix candidates (unassigned10.2 issues)

[David Van Couvering <Da...@Sun.COM>]

DERBY-1626 - TransactionTable.sql fails - I think we need to keep this 
although is that still an issue, as I haven't seen this failure lately

DERBY-1566 - We still need to document the new SQL States, this should 
be done before the release.

DERBY-1551 - Update documentation to indicate procedures can be called 
from triggers (DERBY-551).  I think this is a key enhancement and should 
be more than an undocumented feature.

DERBY-1552 - Testing of switching authorization mode -- this seems 
pretty important

Thanks,

David

Kathey Marsden wrote:
> We talked about using the normal/low urgency  unassigned 10.2 issues to 
> track high value 10.2 bug fix candidates that can be fixed in the 
> release timeframe..  Probably time to weed down that list.  Question: 
> What date should I now use for this assessment? 
> There are 63 unassigned  10.2 fix candidates  [1]
> I  looked  briefly through the  code issues.  Of these I think the 
> following two are very high value  fix candidates (with my personal 
> prejudice toward supportablity)
> 
> DERBY-1641 - Conglomerate requested does not exist after 
> syscs_import_table with FK
> DERBY-1275 -  Provide a way to enable client tracing without changing 
> the application
> 
> This doc change  I know would be extremely high value as 1 added 
> sentence would save a boat load of user questions. DERBY-1570 -  The 
> derby configuration, logging and diagnostic properties such as 
> derby.language.logStatementText are hard to find in the documentation  
> (just a quick sentence to add,  that can save a lot of user questions)
> 
> I'd also like to keep this issue on the 10.2 list because I think it is 
> planned for 10.2 even though it is not yet assigned.
> DERBY-634 - Subquery materialization can cause stack overflow
> 
> I think all but a very small high value list can be moved to 10.2.2.0 
> with of course the understanding that those bugs can be fixed too if 
> there is time.
> It will help remove noise as folks pick bugs to fix.
> 
> What other issues would folks like to keep on the unassigned 10.2  list?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Kathey
> [1] 10.2 Unassigned issues:
> http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&&pid=10594&resolution=-1&fixfor=11187&assigneeSelect=unassigned&sorter/field=issuekey&sorter/order=DESC 
> 
> 
>