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 Andrew McIntyre <fu...@nonintuitive.com> on 2004/12/07 01:32:08 UTC
trunk version now 10.1.0.0 alpha / 10.0 branch created
Hello derby-dev,
Now that we have a release posted and there are new features waiting to
be checked in, I have branched the current codebase and updated the
version on the trunk to 10.1.0.0 alpha so that new features can be
checked in as per the accepted version/upgrade policy.
The URL for the new branch is:
svn co
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/derby/code/branches/10.0/ .
or, you can use the switch command if you wish to move a current
working copy to the branch:
svn switch
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/derby/code/branches/10.0/
I have updated the version number on the branch to 10.0.2.2 to
distinguish newer branch builds from the current release. The branch
was created as of svn revision 110050.
andrew
Re: trunk version now 10.1.0.0 alpha / 10.0 branch created
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Mamta Satoor wrote:
>>>
>>>This may be a dumb question, but why wouldn't the branch have been made
>>>at 106979 ? Why have a gap between the release and the branch?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>My guess is that between the time when release was made and branch was
>>cut, there were checkins into other Apache projects and that is why the
>>jump in the number.but I could be wrong.
>>
>>
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/SummarizeList?listId=272 shows there
> are lots of derby svn revisions between 106978 and 110050.
Well, actually seven as documented earlier in
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=derby-dev@db.apache.org&msgNo=1218
Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBtfW8Iv0S4qsbfuQRAuRHAJ472aZWIZdv02yiVtG+EXZCS2ZiPgCgsb0y
C9aTT/gapsF16OcDb8fWCcY=
=z6YE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: trunk version now 10.1.0.0 alpha / 10.0 branch created
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Mamta Satoor wrote:
>"Jean T. Anderson" wrote:
>
>
>>Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have updated the version number on the branch to 10.0.2.2 to
>>>>distinguish newer branch builds from the current release. The branch was
>>>>created as of svn revision 110050.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>So since the release was at svn revision 106978 and the branch at
>>>110050, I think it means the commits listed below are in the 10.0
>>>branch, but not in the release. Thus they would automatically be
>>>included in any future 10.0 release or snapshot. They all seem to be
>>>within the scope of a bug-fix/stable branch so I say "lazy approval" for
>>>including them in the 10.0 branch.
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>This may be a dumb question, but why wouldn't the branch have been made
>>at 106979 ? Why have a gap between the release and the branch?
>>
>>
>My guess is that between the time when release was made and branch was
>cut, there were checkins into other Apache projects and that is why the
>jump in the number.but I could be wrong.
>
>
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/SummarizeList?listId=272 shows there
are lots of derby svn revisions between 106978 and 110050.
-jean
Re: trunk version now 10.1.0.0 alpha / 10.0 branch created
Posted by Mamta Satoor <ma...@Remulak.Net>.
"Jean T. Anderson" wrote:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
> > Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> >
> > >I have updated the version number on the branch to 10.0.2.2 to
> > >distinguish newer branch builds from the current release. The branch was
> > >created as of svn revision 110050.
> >
> > So since the release was at svn revision 106978 and the branch at
> > 110050, I think it means the commits listed below are in the 10.0
> > branch, but not in the release. Thus they would automatically be
> > included in any future 10.0 release or snapshot. They all seem to be
> > within the scope of a bug-fix/stable branch so I say "lazy approval" for
> > including them in the 10.0 branch.
> > ...
>
> This may be a dumb question, but why wouldn't the branch have been made
> at 106979 ? Why have a gap between the release and the branch?
>
> -jean
My guess is that between the time when release was made and branch was
cut, there were checkins into other Apache projects and that is why the
jump in the number.but I could be wrong.
Mamta
Re: trunk version now 10.1.0.0 alpha / 10.0 branch created
Posted by Andrew McIntyre <fu...@nonintuitive.com>.
On Dec 7, 2004, at 8:34 AM, Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> This may be a dumb question, but why wouldn't the branch have been made
> at 106979 ? Why have a gap between the release and the branch?
Several days passed between when the 10.0.2.1 build was made and when
the vote to accept that build as the official release closed, during
which time several bug fixes and test updates were checked in. So, in
order to not have to also merge any of those fixes to the branch, I
took a look at the changes that had gone in since the change 10.0.2.1
was based on and they all seemed to me to be changes that would be
appropriate for 10.0.2.2, so I branched from the head at that point.
andrew
Re: trunk version now 10.1.0.0 alpha / 10.0 branch created
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>
> >I have updated the version number on the branch to 10.0.2.2 to
> >distinguish newer branch builds from the current release. The branch was
> >created as of svn revision 110050.
>
> So since the release was at svn revision 106978 and the branch at
> 110050, I think it means the commits listed below are in the 10.0
> branch, but not in the release. Thus they would automatically be
> included in any future 10.0 release or snapshot. They all seem to be
> within the scope of a bug-fix/stable branch so I say "lazy approval" for
> including them in the 10.0 branch.
> ...
This may be a dumb question, but why wouldn't the branch have been made
at 106979 ? Why have a gap between the release and the branch?
-jean
Re: trunk version now 10.1.0.0 alpha / 10.0 branch created
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> I have updated the version number on the branch to 10.0.2.2 to
> distinguish newer branch builds from the current release. The branch was
> created as of svn revision 110050.
So since the release was at svn revision 106978 and the branch at
110050, I think it means the commits listed below are in the 10.0
branch, but not in the release. Thus they would automatically be
included in any future 10.0 release or snapshot. They all seem to be
within the scope of a bug-fix/stable branch so I say "lazy approval" for
including them in the 10.0 branch.
Dan.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
r109604 | kmarsden | 2004-12-02 16:41:59 -0800 (Thu, 02 Dec 2004) | 4 lines
Adding 2 tests to suites.
Contributed by myrna@Golux.Com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
r109565 | kmarsden | 2004-12-02 13:59:42 -0800 (Thu, 02 Dec 2004) | 3 lines
Test master update and removal of tests that do not exist from suites.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
r109527 | fuzzylogic | 2004-12-02 11:39:44 -0800 (Thu, 02 Dec 2004) | 2
lines
fix dblook message key names in tools/dblook.java
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
r109470 | fuzzylogic | 2004-12-01 23:44:03 -0800 (Wed, 01 Dec 2004) | 2
lines
Fix message names in dblook
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
r109462 | fuzzylogic | 2004-12-01 23:14:03 -0800 (Wed, 01 Dec 2004) | 4
lines
Cleanup Cloudscape/IBM references in frameworks scripts.
Committing for Scott Hutinger <s-...@wiu.edu>
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
r109265 | kmarsden | 2004-11-30 16:23:58 -0800 (Tue, 30 Nov 2004) | 3 lines
Adding store .sql tests & suite, xa suite; remove some cloudscape
references.
contributed by myrna@golux.com
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
r109245 | fuzzylogic | 2004-11-30 12:31:03 -0800 (Tue, 30 Nov 2004) | 2
lines
update STATUS, add README
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBtPzcIv0S4qsbfuQRAlbvAKDXnx5t6eWbpuTIdI5gHjW9Z5LsMgCeIwVN
fRaArKVaJ1wRYCYB5596EcY=
=anw+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: All *.java files with IBM Confidential comments
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
RPost wrote:
> Here are all of the files found by searching for 'confidential' in *.java
> files. These all have the IBM confidential comment I listed:
14 files fixed in the trunk (111212) and merged into the 10.0 branch
(111214).
Thanks for catching these RPost!
Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBto+6Iv0S4qsbfuQRAoPlAKC0OHKyFRQdJGB98VOPQcWLa6Wf3wCfR/zF
del2xdPqt0sBkRMjAvkO/40=
=kuNW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: All *.java files with IBM Confidential comments
Posted by RPost <rp...@pacbell.net>.
I guess I was hoping I did not have the latest pre-release source. When the
'release' candidate was posted I downloaded the zip file and all files are
extracted to a path of:
incubating-derby-10.0.2.1-src
96 files in this tree have 'IBM' in them and 23 have 'cloudscape'.
Here are all of the files found by searching for 'confidential' in *.java
files. These all have the IBM confidential comment I listed:
package org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info
ProductVersionHolder.java
package org.apache.derby.iapi.sql.dictionary
SchemaDescriptor.java
package org.apache.derby.impl.sql.catalog
SYSALIASESRowFactory.java
SYSCHECKSRowFactory.java
SYSCOLUMNSRowFactory.java
SYSCONGLOMERATESRowFactory.java
SYSCONSTRAINTSRowFactory.java
SYSDEPENDSRowFactory.java
SYSFOREIGNKEYSRowFactory.java
SYSKEYSRowFactory.java
SYSSCHEMASRowFactory.java
SYSTABLESRowFactory.java
SYSVIEWSRowFactory.java
package org.apache.derby.impl.store.raw.data
StoredPage.java
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel John Debrunner" <dj...@debrunners.com>
To: "Derby Development" <de...@db.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: trunk version now 10.1.0.0 alpha / 10.0 branch created
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>
> >
> > On Dec 7, 2004, at 3:48 PM, RPost wrote:
> >
> >> Do comments like this one in
> >> org.apache.derby.impl.store.raw.data.StoredPage.java
> >> need to be changed? I have seen similar comments in other files from
the
> >> 10.0.2.1 source.
> >>
> >> /* IBM Confidential
> >
> >
> > Confidential notices should have been changed to IBM Copyright notices
> > before the source was handed over to Apache, but apparently a few files
> > slipped through. I'm guessing that any remaining Confidential notices
> > should probably be changed over to the Apache license header by an IBM
> > employee, but that is just my guess. Ken and/or Dan can provide an
> > official answer to that question.
>
> Looks like my script handled some cases incorrectly, I'll look at fixing
> them.
>
> Dan.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFBtkoUIv0S4qsbfuQRAh0mAJ0b+2AMdsNthgscd+zM7QJCf//xJACfWhIT
> VDiYkgJfFYdU4rH0X8TV0NU=
> =aN1Q
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
Re: trunk version now 10.1.0.0 alpha / 10.0 branch created
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
>
> On Dec 7, 2004, at 3:48 PM, RPost wrote:
>
>> Do comments like this one in
>> org.apache.derby.impl.store.raw.data.StoredPage.java
>> need to be changed? I have seen similar comments in other files from the
>> 10.0.2.1 source.
>>
>> /* IBM Confidential
>
>
> Confidential notices should have been changed to IBM Copyright notices
> before the source was handed over to Apache, but apparently a few files
> slipped through. I'm guessing that any remaining Confidential notices
> should probably be changed over to the Apache license header by an IBM
> employee, but that is just my guess. Ken and/or Dan can provide an
> official answer to that question.
Looks like my script handled some cases incorrectly, I'll look at fixing
them.
Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBtkoUIv0S4qsbfuQRAh0mAJ0b+2AMdsNthgscd+zM7QJCf//xJACfWhIT
VDiYkgJfFYdU4rH0X8TV0NU=
=aN1Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: trunk version now 10.1.0.0 alpha / 10.0 branch created
Posted by Andrew McIntyre <fu...@nonintuitive.com>.
On Dec 7, 2004, at 3:48 PM, RPost wrote:
> Do comments like this one in
> org.apache.derby.impl.store.raw.data.StoredPage.java
> need to be changed? I have seen similar comments in other files from
> the
> 10.0.2.1 source.
>
> /* IBM Confidential
Confidential notices should have been changed to IBM Copyright notices
before the source was handed over to Apache, but apparently a few files
slipped through. I'm guessing that any remaining Confidential notices
should probably be changed over to the Apache license header by an IBM
employee, but that is just my guess. Ken and/or Dan can provide an
official answer to that question.
Please post to the list if you run across any other IBM confidential
headers such as this.
andrew
Re: trunk version now 10.1.0.0 alpha / 10.0 branch created
Posted by RPost <rp...@pacbell.net>.
Do comments like this one in
org.apache.derby.impl.store.raw.data.StoredPage.java
need to be changed? I have seen similar comments in other files from the
10.0.2.1 source.
/* IBM Confidential
*
* Product ID: 5697-F53
*
* Copyright 1997, 2004.WESTHAM
*
* The source code for this program is not published or otherwise divested
* of its trade secrets, irrespective of what has been deposited with the
* U.S. Copyright Office.
*/
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew McIntyre" <fu...@nonintuitive.com>
To: "Derby Development" <de...@db.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 4:32 PM
Subject: trunk version now 10.1.0.0 alpha / 10.0 branch created
> Hello derby-dev,
>
> Now that we have a release posted and there are new features waiting to
> be checked in, I have branched the current codebase and updated the
> version on the trunk to 10.1.0.0 alpha so that new features can be
> checked in as per the accepted version/upgrade policy.
>
> The URL for the new branch is:
>
> svn co
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/derby/code/branches/10.0/ .
>
> or, you can use the switch command if you wish to move a current
> working copy to the branch:
>
> svn switch
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/derby/code/branches/10.0/
>
> I have updated the version number on the branch to 10.0.2.2 to
> distinguish newer branch builds from the current release. The branch
> was created as of svn revision 110050.
>
> andrew
>
Re: WARNING on trunk status for production use
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
>
>>...
>>Jean, if when you post the Derby release info, could you add a warning
>>like this to the downloads page. I assume that page will be updated for
>>instructions on how to download the branch as well as the trunk.
>>...
>
>
> The the downloads page is now updated, but I suspect needs wordsmithing
> and clarification.
Thanks, I would just change the code line descriptions to
'Check out the 10.0 branch'
'Check out the development trunk'
leaving out the specific versions which will change over time.
I like the re-wording of my warning, minor problem with a missing word in
'The development is not suitable for production use because:'
I think you missed 'trunk' after 'development'.
Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBtdGOIv0S4qsbfuQRAms3AKCcIVdL5/Z97N12MH+PRYLFlKilBACfb4eG
yAabgR8/jsFTQDFK3Bfrgb4=
=AHZp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: WARNING on trunk status for production use
Posted by "Jean T. Anderson" <jt...@bristowhill.com>.
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> ...
> Jean, if when you post the Derby release info, could you add a warning
> like this to the downloads page. I assume that page will be updated for
> instructions on how to download the branch as well as the trunk.
> ...
The the downloads page is now updated, but I suspect needs wordsmithing
and clarification.
-jean
WARNING on trunk status for production use
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@debrunners.com>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> Hello derby-dev,
>
> Now that we have a release posted and there are new features waiting to
> be checked in, I have branched the current codebase and updated the
> version on the trunk to 10.1.0.0 alpha so that new features can be
> checked in as per the accepted version/upgrade policy.
Now that Derby has a release, it should be noted that the trunk
(http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/derby/code/trunk) should be
seen as a development code line and *not* suitable for production use.
Production use of Derby should use official Derby releases or snapshot
builds off the branches (or self built jars off the branches with bug
fixes).
This is because the development code line (trunk):
- will contain new features that have only undergone limited testing
and may corrupt data and/or return incorrect results. (We hope not, but
you never know :-)
- may create on-disk database formats that are not upgradable to future
releases of Derby. Databases created by official Derby releases will be
upgradable to future versions.
- and indeed the alpha version tag explicitly disables upgrade in Derby.
Of course the development code line exists to allow:
- development of new features with compromising production quality
released code lines
- early access to new features for testing
Jean, if when you post the Derby release info, could you add a warning
like this to the downloads page. I assume that page will be updated for
instructions on how to download the branch as well as the trunk.
Dan.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBtQQ1Iv0S4qsbfuQRAo+OAJ9ICZnyhfzEyIDcL5Nn/Nx8ivAU/ACgxzs7
deRzzvSKyGl+gdGNCtGVFs0=
=Plnb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----