Merging 1072 patch in 10.1 branch

[Mayuresh Nirhali <Ma...@Sun.COM>]

Hello,

The fix for Derby-1072 recently got committed to the trunk 
(409578,409713). Now, I wish to have this committed in the 10.1.3 branch.

As per the instructions, I was trying to merge these patches with 10.1 
local client and wanted to test the fix so that it can be committed quickly.

The command, svn merge -r 409577:409578 
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/code/trunk, brought up some 
conflicts in some files. I have attached the output of above command.

The problem here is that my changes are on top of some more changes 
which are not in 10.1 branch as yet. So, I think it will be ideal to 
have those changes committed first and then this patch can be tested and 
committed.

In this scenario, how can I test my patch in the 10.1 branch locally ??

P.S. >> I have not specified the FIX version to be 10.1.3 as yet.

Thanks
Mayuresh,

Re: Merging 1072 patch in 10.1 branch

[Army <qo...@gmail.com>]

Kathey Marsden wrote:
> If loooking for a high value port to 10.1 DERBY-1329 might be a good 
> option.  Satheesh just put that fix  in the trunk.

I just uploaded the 10.1 patch to DERBY-1329.  I wanted to run derbyall before 
posting the patch, just to make sure, so that's why I hadn't uploaded it sooner.

Army

Re: Merging 1072 patch in 10.1 branch

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

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

>Mayuresh Nirhali wrote:
>  
>
>One thing to consider is merging the fix really going to benefit 10.1.
>
>In this case I would say it's not worth the extra effort of determing
>which other patches are needed or manually resolving changes. The fix
>basically changes an error message, not an essential chanage for 10.1,
>though it is a good change for 10.2.
>
>  
>
If loooking for a high value port to 10.1 DERBY-1329 might be a good 
option.  Satheesh just put that fix  in the trunk.
Other porting  candidates are listed at:
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/HighValueFixCandidates#head-d9978e63ee3ad083975b8d470968fdccf9f9e813

Kathey

Re: Merging 1072 patch in 10.1 branch

[Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>]

Mayuresh Nirhali wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> The fix for Derby-1072 recently got committed to the trunk
> (409578,409713). Now, I wish to have this committed in the 10.1.3 branch.
> 
> As per the instructions, I was trying to merge these patches with 10.1
> local client and wanted to test the fix so that it can be committed
> quickly.
> 
> The command, svn merge -r 409577:409578
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/code/trunk, brought up some
> conflicts in some files. I have attached the output of above command.
> 
> The problem here is that my changes are on top of some more changes
> which are not in 10.1 branch as yet. So, I think it will be ideal to
> have those changes committed first and then this patch can be tested and
> committed.
> 
> In this scenario, how can I test my patch in the 10.1 branch locally ??

One thing to consider is merging the fix really going to benefit 10.1.

In this case I would say it's not worth the extra effort of determing
which other patches are needed or manually resolving changes. The fix
basically changes an error message, not an essential chanage for 10.1,
though it is a good change for 10.2.

Dan.

Re: Merging 1072 patch in 10.1 branch

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

Mayuresh Nirhali wrote:

> Hello,
>
>
> The command, svn merge -r 409577:409578 
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/db/derby/code/trunk, brought up some 
> conflicts in some files. I have attached the output of above command.
>
> The problem here is that my changes are on top of some more changes 
> which are not in 10.1 branch as yet. So, I think it will be ideal to 
> have those changes committed first and then this patch can be tested 
> and committed.
>
> In this scenario, how can I test my patch in the 10.1 branch locally ??
>
Typically, you have two options here:
1) Resolve the conflicts you encountered in the merge manually, test, 
and submit a new patch for 10.1
2)  Merge and test the other  fix that  you would like to see committed 
first. 
(Note: there is no need for the original fixer to be the one to merge a 
fix.  The code belongs to the community and anyone who wants to see  a 
fix in 10.1 can  port it.  Typically when doing this I assign myself  
while doing the port and then assign back to the original fixer once 
fixed, but maybe a subtask  for the port would be clearer)
 
In the DERBY-1072  case there looks like there is some grant revoke 
stuff mixed in there which is not appropriate for  10.1, so it looks 
like option 1 is probably the way to go.

Kathey