Rick Hillegas wrote: > Hi Kathey, > > My initial ramblings on this topic start out at the end of August in > the email thread "client/server compatibility testing". There I > worried that over time, the compatibility tests could grow large > (taking maybe 5 minutes per combination) and so, if run for all the > combinations, would make derbyall take too long. That's why we're only > runing one combination as part of derbyall. That combination doesn't > really track a compatibility issue, it just tracks regressions which > might creep into the test as other code changes. > > I'm certainly in favor of running all the combinations on a nightly or > weekly basis and as a sanity check when cutting release candidates. > It seems that it would be worthwhile to enable the test with the 10.1 jars (original client release) as it would make a clear statement of the minimum client/server jar combinations that are expected work, would probably catch most things that might break over time, and hopefully would not add too much time.
What do you think? Kathey
