[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6061?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13569439#comment-13569439
]
Dag H. Wanvik commented on DERBY-6061:
--------------------------------------
> Another approach to the problem might be to eliminate all mention of soft
> upgrade
This may be good for most users' perspectives. Devs need two terms to cover the
"soft" behavior as well, and dev terms easily slip into end user docs.
Bu also users need sometimes be aware that a new version of the database jar
*could* cause issues even without upgrade=true, and also sometimes new
features/fixes *are* available without hard upgrade, so it would be good to
have an easy way to characterize that situation.
What about code (or jar) upgrade vs. database upgrade ?
> Upgrade language is inconsistent
> --------------------------------
>
> Key: DERBY-6061
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6061
> Project: Derby
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Documentation
> Affects Versions: 10.9.1.0
> Reporter: Kim Haase
> Priority: Minor
>
> In the Developer's Guide we describe two kinds of upgrade, "full" and "soft".
> I think we used to use the terms "hard" and "soft", and "hard" was changed to
> "full" to provide a more accurate description of what happens. There are
> still a few leftover occurrences of "hard" in the docs here and there.
> However, "soft" doesn't provide much indication of what happens in that kind
> of upgrade. Would "partial" be more correct? If not, is there a good
> alternative?
> I can go through the docs and fix the language based on whatever you all
> think makes sense.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
