A quick chime in. I am not comfortable with a source-only release of
10.2. I think a binary release without JDBC4, plus the source for the
JDBC4 functionality for those who want it and are prepared to do a build
(e.g. option 2) seems quite reasonable to me.
David
Bernt M. Johnsen wrote:
Rick Hillegas wrote:
Hi Dan,
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Since this is an open-*source* project, we do have other options that
seem to have no legal issues to me (IANAL).
Option A - Source only release with JDBC 4.0 based on proposed final
draft
Derby 10.2 release is source only, no pre-compiled jars, removes the
dependency on the Mustang download.
This would seem to require that users become developers, at least to the
point of creating a development environment.
Well. Derby is *not* an end-user product, so the Derby users are
themselves developers.
I had an unhappy initial
experience as a Derby developer a year ago. Perhaps the situation has
gotten better. I recall that setting up a development environment
involved a lot of steps and moving parts--fetching various pieces of
software from various locations, editting ant configuration files, etc..
I think that may discourage many users. That in turn will limit the
commodity testing and feedback which we hope to get from users of the
official release.
I see your concerns. But I have done this maneouver several times in my
career with various open source products (the list is very long, but I
started with some platform problems with emacs on Sun386i in the late
80s), and the build process wasn't always smooth (I even once had to
edit a files in SunOS /usr/include to make gcc compile). Don't
underestimate the Derby users.
In addition, an uncontrolled build process would very likely complicate
bug reporting. For these reasons, I would recommend against this option.
The option will always be there for the most eager users, since JDBC4 is
always in the trunk, and even if we remove JDBC4, we can't rollback svn
and undo what we've done.
