[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6061?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13570909#comment-13570909
]
Dag H. Wanvik commented on DERBY-6061:
--------------------------------------
I'm OK with keeping soft upgrade vs. (full) upgrade. In general, I think
keeping hints in the docs that the database needs to be at a certain release
before a feature is available is helpful, cf. Java's Javadocs which state from
what SE release a new class or methods exists.
So I agree with Mike here; let the sentence on roles stand but with the
harmonized language.
> 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
> Attachments: cdevcsecureroles.html, DERBY-6061-code.diff,
> DERBY-6061.diff
>
>
> 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
