Hi Dan,
Yes, I'll add this useful information to the wiki page after I've posted
the new beta.
Regards,
-Rick
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Rick Hillegas wrote:
I tried the mega merge approach this time and ended up with a conflict
on one of the patches which had been ported previously. I don't know if
there was something special about the patch or if that's just to be
expected. So I broke the merge up into mini-merges whose endpoints were
the patches which had been ported already. That resulted in no
conflicts. Any regular policy would simplify the job of the release
manager. Unfortunately, regardless of the policy, people will make
mistakes and create outlying cases. It's those outliers which complicate
the process. All in all, I prefer the following policy--but I'm still
going to have to sanity check the submission comments on every patch:
1) Don't bother merging from the trunk to the branch. I'll sweep up
these changes in a mega-merge.
2) However, if you think a patch should not be ported to 10.2, then
please note that in the table at the end of this 10.2 wiki page:
http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/TenTwoRelease.
Rick thanks for doing these merges, can you keep the wiki upto date with
what *has* been merged? I think it's fine to say as I did after your
last merge that everything has been merged up to a certain point
excluding the list above, rather than list everything that has been merged.
Eg.
All changes on the trunk from the time the 10.2 branch was created and
ending with subversion revision 432654 (excluding the above) were merged
into the 10.2 branch on 2006/8/18.
Thanks,
Dan.
