Kathey Marsden wrote: > Satheesh Bandaram wrote: > > >>I find current behavior inconvinient... I am trying to understand why Derby >>doesn't allow soft-upgrade from previous releases. >> > > Regardless of whether we provide a mechanism allow soft upgrade, I > think that databases that have been modified by alpha software should > not be accessible by a released Derby version and thus be allowed carry > any undetected corruption with them into a supported production > environment where we really can't tell that it was the alpha software > that did the damage.
So if soft upgrade with alpha is run against an existing database are you saying that database should not longer be accessible by any released version of Derby? Just trying to understand what your definition of "modified" is in this case. I wonder why if the alpha/beta checks were removed in one direction, why they would not be removed in the other direction? Not sure I'm in favor of removing any of the restrictions, but it seems strange to disallow some things and not others. Either we try to protect users or we say it's open source, use the alpha/beta at your own risk, anything could happen. Thanks, Dan.
