On 7/9/07, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Myrna van Lunteren wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After the testing of 10.3.1.0 beta as documented on the testing pages
> for the DerbyTenThreeRelease
>
(see:http://wiki.apache.org/db-derby/DerbyTenThreeRelease#head-c6b20b58527b8de23f358548756f36e643da2e71),
>
> I have now prepared a release candidate, 10.3.1.1 (build/revision
> 554502). It is available on:
Looking at the release notes I have a couple of suggestions for future
releases.
1) Just list features as features, not "big" & "small". I don't see how
the determination was made than one feature was "big" and one "small".
It doesn't correlate to amount of effort and labeling a feature as small
might disappoint a contributor who worked hard to implement their feature.
For the most part, I took what was documented on the Wiki, assuming
folks had raised their own, or eachother's trumpet as appropriate. I
then went and checked that all the bugs listed were closed and did not
include duplicates or wont fixes. Next I compared this list with 'new
features' type issues in JIRA which had a fix-in for 10.3.0.0 (there
were none for 10.3.1.0 or 10.3.1.1) and checked that all were either
on the list, or linked to one of the issues on the list.
But I think it makes sense to add a section to the release notes
generator that just dumbly puts all new features in ordered by on asc
(or desc) bug number.
2) For release notes that describe corrected SQL query behaviour I don't
think the summaries should use the term "different", as in "different
results" or "behave differently", e.g. Notes for DERBY-2526, DERBY-2370
& others. What is really happening is the queries have been changed to
return *correct* results. To a reader "different" (in the summary) seems
kind of vague and worrying.
I'll modify the web page that discusses jira if I can find a good
place for it to point this out.
Dan.
Thx for your input.
Myrna
