[jira] [Commented] (DERBY-6061) Upgrade language is inconsistent

["Rick Hillegas (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6061?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13567810#comment-13567810 ] 

Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-6061:
--------------------------------------

Thanks for logging this issue, Kim. I agree that the terms "hard" and "soft" aren't very meaningful. However, I don't think that the terms "full" and "partial" are much better. I think that the defining behavior of the two types of upgrades can be summarized as follows:

o Hard - In this kind of upgrade, on-disk data in the database is changed. This kind of upgrade is NOT reversible. That is, once you hard-upgrade the database, then you can no longer run older versions of the Derby engine jar file against the database. By "older", I mean a version with a lower major.minor identifier. In addition, hard upgrade typically enables new features.

o Soft - In this kind of upgrade, on-disk data in the database is NOT changed. If your application misbehaves after this upgrade, you can reverse the upgrade by running your old version of the Derby engine jar. Typically, soft upgrade does not enable new features.

So we need a pair of terms which capture these distinctions. Maybe "feature" vs. "bugfix".

Thanks,
-Rick
                
> Upgrade language is inconsistent
> --------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-6061
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6061
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Documentation
>    Affects Versions: 10.9.1.0
>            Reporter: Kim Haase
>            Priority: Minor
>
> In the Developer's Guide we describe two kinds of upgrade, "full" and "soft". I think we used to use the terms "hard" and "soft", and "hard" was changed to "full" to provide a more accurate description of what happens. There are still a few leftover occurrences of "hard" in the docs here and there.
> However, "soft" doesn't provide much indication of what happens in that kind of upgrade. Would "partial" be more correct? If not, is there a good alternative?
> I can go through the docs and fix the language based on whatever you all think makes sense.

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira