Rick Hillegas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Thanks for your input, Rick!
> 3) In general I wouldn't hold up the release of incremental > improvements because some other issue hasn't been fixed. As far as I > can tell, 10.4 delivers useful features and performance > improvements. At first blush, it seems to me to be a better > distribution than 10.3. I would hold up 10.4 only if we had a good > reason to believe that 10.4 will make the corruption issues worse. Agreed. There's nothing indicating that 10.4 is worse than 10.3 in this respect, so it shouldn't block the release. I just wanted to raise the issue since bugs that cause database corruption are probably the worst bugs a database system can have. > 4) It might be worthwhile for the community to focus on bug fixing for > a couple months. That could include a concentrated effort to track > down these corruptions. +1, sounds like a good idea. In the lack of reproducible test cases I guess we'll have to focus on code review. If we think the corruptions are caused by multi-threading bugs, using techniques like adding calls to sleep() strategic places in the code (see DERBY-3393) could perhaps also help us smoke them out. -- Knut Anders
