Kathey Marsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Rick Hillegas wrote: > >> So, I'm unclear: Are you still blocking metadata changes or are you >> satisfied with the analysis done so far by Knut Anders and Dyre? Can >> we proceed with metadata checkins provided that: >> >> 1) Such patches clearly describe acceptable upgrade behavior >> 2) Clean upgrade test results accompany the submissions >> > I think that this would be fine and in addition would hope that any > metadata queries changed/added were covered as part of the ugprade test.
I think it would be good if the upgrade test also ran metadata tests in the DerbyNetClient framework. The only known upgrade issue in 10.2 is DERBY-1176, but it is not exposed by the upgrade test since it is only seen in client/server mode. -- Knut Anders
