[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-6061?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13572102#comment-13572102
]
Dag H. Wanvik commented on DERBY-6061:
--------------------------------------
Thanks, Kim. Looks good. The sentence reintroduced for roles should probably
say "fully upgraded" now: Since we retain the term soft upgrade, the term
"upgrade" is not precise. Maybe we should state in the section "upgrading a
database" that any usage of the unqualified term "upgrade" will (normally,
unless with the soft qualifier) mean a full upgrade? Or did you do through
other uses to check that they are properly qualified?
> 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-6061-2.diff,
> DERBY-6061-code2.diff, DERBY-6061-code2.stat, DERBY-6061-code.diff,
> DERBY-6061.diff, DERBY-6061.stat, DERBY-6061.zip
>
>
> 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
