Rick Hillegas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Dyre, > > These two issues were marked as blockers by the people who logged > them. Is that anything more than a statement of how much pain these > issues cause those people?
Probably not. But I wanted to get an impression of which open bugs could be candidates for 10.4, and the high-priority issues seemed like a good place to start. > If I were to categorize issues according to > the severity of their impact, it would look something like this (in > declining order of significance): > > 1) Engine crashes > 2) Data corruption > 3) Wrong results > 4) Failures (e.g., a query just aborts) > 5) Misleading messages, typos, ugly formatting, ... Agreed. Except that I think I would move 1) below corruption and wrong results, but that's just my opinion... > These two issues seem to fall into category (4). > If I were release > manager, I would downgrade these to the level of other NPEs and query > aborts--beneath the significance of issues in category (3). Agreed, and this is more or less what I was planning to do. In the case of DERBY-3260 it seemed so close to being fixed that I thought it might be easier just to get it checked in. But if it, for some reason, cannot be fixed, I agree that it should be downgraded. Wrt. DERBY-3303 I think that it is actually in category 3) (as I think Army has said, as well). > You, of course, are the release manager. It's up to you to publish > your criteria for ranking issues. It may also be helpful to ask the > user community to vote on which issues are most important to them. Well, I welcome any input on how to categorize bugs :) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Currently we have two JIRA issues classified as "Blockers": >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3260 >> >> and >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-3303 >> >> >> DERBY-3260 has a patch which has been reviewed favorably by Knut, but I >> feel that the following quote from his comment deserves some attention: >> >> "It would be interesting, though, if someone could shed some light on >> why the synchronization was commented out in the first place. This piece >> of code hasn't been changed since the code was donated to Apache, so the >> commit log doesn't tell us anything about it." >> >> >> It seems like both DERBY-3303 and its "Critical" cousin DERBY-3231 >> are caused by rev 516454 (fix for DERBY-681), (a fix was checked in for >> DERBY-3231, but it remains open). Is there any chance of these being >> fixed in time for 10.4? >> >> > -- dt
