In my opinion we'd have a mix of both options. We could keep 10.5.2.0 on the site just for history's sake and introduce the 10.5.2.1 at the same time, with the DERBY-4331 fix. I'm just suggesting this because it seems a little extreme to bump the version up to 10.5.3 with virtually no relevant changes other than DERBY-4331.
Tiago On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Kathey Marsden <[email protected]>wrote: > Dag H. Wanvik wrote: > >> Myrna van Lunteren <[email protected]> writes: >> >> >> >>> I personally don't care for a release that has either DERBY-3926 or >>> DERBY-4331 in it. >>> >>> >> Now that we have fixes for both DERBY-3926 and DERBY4331 in the trunk. I > hope we can restart this discussion with better options, which hopefully > will avoid the need for the funny JavaDB non-fork fork. Current options > as I see them. 1) Pull 10.5.2.0 off the website, cut 10.5.2.1 with the fix > and short vote with Rick as release manager. > 2) Move 10.5.2.0 down to the deprecated section. cut 10.5.3.0 with short > vote with Rick as release manager. > > I think I prefer option 2 as we don't try to erase the history of the vote > or the release being on the website, but I can accept either approach. > > Kathey > > >
