[ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2171?page=comments#action_12459790 ] Daniel John Debrunner commented on DERBY-2171: ----------------------------------------------
The re-worked issues section looks much better - thanks Rick. There is a minor problem with the issue description for DERBY-1384, it says "Maximum BLOB/CLOB length has increased to 2G-1." The maximum length for a BLOB/CLOB has always been 2G-1 (bytes/characters) for Derby. What changed was the default maximum when no maximum was specified. E.g. BLOB(1G) worked in 10.0 onwards BLOB mapped to 1M in 10.0/10.1 - maps to 2G-1 in 10.2 > Issues section of RELEASE-NOTES is confusing > -------------------------------------------- > > Key: DERBY-2171 > URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-2171 > Project: Derby > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Documentation > Affects Versions: 10.2.1.6, 10.2.2.0 > Reporter: Daniel John Debrunner > Attachments: derby-2171-v01.diff, RELEASE-NOTES.html > > > I find the Issues section of the RELEASE-NOTES very confusing, the summary > has a bullet list of items with a number. > The descriptions for all these issues do not describe the issue, they descibe > the original bug report. Thus when I read this list I don't get the > impression that these are issues I should care about. However when reading > the detail I do see it is an issue that I should care about. > For example: > From bullet list. > "263 - Client should throw not implemented exception for depricated > setUnicodeStream/getUnicodeStream" > Says to me there is an outstanding bug in 10.2 where the client is throwing > an exception it should not. > But the actual issue that will affect an application is well described by the > statement problem statement in the section for 253 > "PreparedStatement.setUnicodeStream() and ResultSet.getUnicodeStream() throw > SQLException when invoked after upgrading to Apache Derby 10.2." > Seems like that would be the better text to be put in the bullet list. > Looking at the detailed notes for the issues the text in Problem sometimes > describes something that is a good thing, not a Problem. > E.g. 781, is it a problem Derby now performs a hash-join, if so why was it > changed? (and 1357) > Some that describe a Problem (e..g. 721,1130,1295,1314,1384,1652) are > actually describing a problem that no longer exists in 10.2, but I thought > this section was about issues that existed in 10.2. In these cases the > Symptom text tends to describe the "problem" better. Ie. the problem is that > the code behaviour has changed, not the old bug. > I don't understand why these are considered issues though: 668, 1621 - they > seem to be fixed bugs. > 253, 1857, 822 are good examples to follow (except for the one liner in the > bullet list) > Also maybe there could be some text that explains what ISSUES are. :-) > Something along the lines of applications upgrading to 10.2 or using Derby > for the first time should be aware of these issues. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa - For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
