Dag H. Wanvik wrote:
Back from vacation :)
Weclome back!
My patch for DERBY-1183 also solved DERBY-1036. Fixing the latter has
application impact (albeit unlikely), since the client driver will be
more liberal with conflicting cursor names. Being a subtask of
DERBY-310, I understand marking DERBY-1036 as having application
impact won't show up. Do you consider this important enough that I
should file a placeholder JIRA to track impact this for 10.2?
My personal opinion is that since new behavior is more liberal, we
shouldn't mark "Existing Application Impact" and clutter up that list.
My other opinion (formed after DERBY-1036 was filed) about sub-tasks in
general is that they are problematic as they don't show up on the
release notes, can't be promoted to a top level task and have other
issues. So I tend these days to make a new issue and link it. I don't
know if making a placeholder for this issue for that reason is
required. I don't have an opinion about that.
Kathey
P.S. I thought it was interesting how you sent this mail out, addressed
to me but with a cc of derby-dev. I wonder if a variation of sending
the mail to derby-dev with a bcc of folks that might have a specific
interest would achieve the goals of encouraging community input and
getting on the radar of those that might want to respond to the
specific issue.
