You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Mathias Meyer <me...@paperplanes.de> on 2011/01/11 20:54:41 UTC
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
On Dienstag, 11. Januar 2011 at 19:51, Paul Davis wrote:
> Vote is recalled due to Robert Newson's veto.
>
> Expect round three after the bug fix.
>
>
Curious over here, is COUCHDB-1021 considered a common issue? I honestly wouldn't want to see this happen to us after we upgraded to 1.0.2, so if it is I'd like to see this fixed before the next 1.0.2 round, especially if it's just a tiny patch.
Cheers, Mathias
--
http://scalarium.com | http://www.paperplanes.de
http://twitter.com/roidrage
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Sebastian Cohnen
<se...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> unless someone discover another 968 (in terms of seriousness) I think 1.0.2 should be released ASP. Many people are waiting for this release...
>
I'm waiting for it too. But I want to have time to test it seriously.
- benoît
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Sebastian Cohnen <se...@googlemail.com>.
unless someone discover another 968 (in terms of seriousness) I think 1.0.2 should be released ASP. Many people are waiting for this release...
On 12.01.2011, at 14:34, Robert Newson wrote:
> 1.0.2 now has fixes for several serious issues. Unless there's another
> known one of sufficient severity I think we should get 1.0.2 as soon
> as we can. Can some other folks chime in with their take please?
>
> B.
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 1.0.x now has fixes for COUCHDB-1021, COUCHDB-1022 and additional
>>> protection against any other bugs that might cause
>>> write_streamed_attachment to go off the rails.
>>>
>>> I think we can restart this process and sorry, again, for having to
>>> veto the previous attempt.
>>>
>>> B.
>>>
>> I think we should give 1 or 2 days before. So we can make a final
>> review on current 1.0x branch rather than discover another unseen
>> thing.
>>
>> - benoît
>>
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Filipe David Manana <fd...@apache.org>.
I agree that there are already more than enough serious and not so
serious issues fixed to justify a 1.0.2 release. If we keep waiting
and waiting, there are always issues being reported and discovered
every day/week, therefore always delaying a release.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.0.2 now has fixes for several serious issues. Unless there's another
> known one of sufficient severity I think we should get 1.0.2 as soon
> as we can. Can some other folks chime in with their take please?
>
> B.
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 1.0.x now has fixes for COUCHDB-1021, COUCHDB-1022 and additional
>>> protection against any other bugs that might cause
>>> write_streamed_attachment to go off the rails.
>>>
>>> I think we can restart this process and sorry, again, for having to
>>> veto the previous attempt.
>>>
>>> B.
>>>
>> I think we should give 1 or 2 days before. So we can make a final
>> review on current 1.0x branch rather than discover another unseen
>> thing.
>>
>> - benoît
>>
>
--
Filipe David Manana,
fdmanana@gmail.com, fdmanana@apache.org
"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Randall Leeds <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:38, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2011, at 18:00, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> What is this now? The US Senate? I thought we were better than that.
>
> I'll filibuster us into November if you're not careful, Mister.
>
>
>
Noah for president.
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On 12 Jan 2011, at 18:00, Paul Davis wrote:
> What is this now? The US Senate? I thought we were better than that.
I'll filibuster us into November if you're not careful, Mister.
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 12 Jan 2011, at 17:45, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> +1 trillion.
>>
>> Does that mean the motion passes? I could see nay-votes having a hard
>> time coming back from down 1 trillion.
>
> Sorry to inform you, Paul...
>
> But that the ASF constitution permits a single -1 vote to block a motion.
>
> *wicked grin*
>
What is this now? The US Senate? I thought we were better than that.
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On 12 Jan 2011, at 17:45, Paul Davis wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> +1 trillion.
>
> Does that mean the motion passes? I could see nay-votes having a hard
> time coming back from down 1 trillion.
Sorry to inform you, Paul...
But that the ASF constitution permits a single -1 vote to block a motion.
*wicked grin*
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 trillion.
Does that mean the motion passes? I could see nay-votes having a hard
time coming back from down 1 trillion.
>
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 1.0.2 now has fixes for several serious issues. Unless there's another
>>>>> known one of sufficient severity I think we should get 1.0.2 as soon
>>>>> as we can. Can some other folks chime in with their take please?
>>>>>
>>>>> B.
>>>> I'm just asking for 1 or 2 days, that's not to much.
>>>>
>>>> Until there are no blocker, we can then release. I don't see any
>>>> reason to not do that. There have been so many fixes in 2 last week,
>>>> that I think it could be good to take some time to test against our
>>>> data. I even didn't have time to test your yesterday patch against my
>>>> data where it was failling.
>>>>
>>>> - benoit
>>>
>>> I'll leave it up to Paul, but the vote itself has a multi-day window, so in my opinion we can continue testing the new fixes during the voting. Best,
>>>
>>> Adam
>>
>> For the record I'd really like to get 1.0.2 out there and just push
>> any new bugs into a 1.0.3 release. If no one objects in the next
>> couple hours I'll remake those tarballs and start this party over
>> tonight.
>>
>
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com>.
+1 trillion.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 1.0.2 now has fixes for several serious issues. Unless there's another
>>>> known one of sufficient severity I think we should get 1.0.2 as soon
>>>> as we can. Can some other folks chime in with their take please?
>>>>
>>>> B.
>>> I'm just asking for 1 or 2 days, that's not to much.
>>>
>>> Until there are no blocker, we can then release. I don't see any
>>> reason to not do that. There have been so many fixes in 2 last week,
>>> that I think it could be good to take some time to test against our
>>> data. I even didn't have time to test your yesterday patch against my
>>> data where it was failling.
>>>
>>> - benoit
>>
>> I'll leave it up to Paul, but the vote itself has a multi-day window, so in my opinion we can continue testing the new fixes during the voting. Best,
>>
>> Adam
>
> For the record I'd really like to get 1.0.2 out there and just push
> any new bugs into a 1.0.3 release. If no one objects in the next
> couple hours I'll remake those tarballs and start this party over
> tonight.
>
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 1.0.2 now has fixes for several serious issues. Unless there's another
>>> known one of sufficient severity I think we should get 1.0.2 as soon
>>> as we can. Can some other folks chime in with their take please?
>>>
>>> B.
>> I'm just asking for 1 or 2 days, that's not to much.
>>
>> Until there are no blocker, we can then release. I don't see any
>> reason to not do that. There have been so many fixes in 2 last week,
>> that I think it could be good to take some time to test against our
>> data. I even didn't have time to test your yesterday patch against my
>> data where it was failling.
>>
>> - benoit
>
> I'll leave it up to Paul, but the vote itself has a multi-day window, so in my opinion we can continue testing the new fixes during the voting. Best,
>
> Adam
For the record I'd really like to get 1.0.2 out there and just push
any new bugs into a 1.0.3 release. If no one objects in the next
couple hours I'll remake those tarballs and start this party over
tonight.
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com>.
Paul,
I think a new release candidate from the tip of 1.0.x
(3674f2a2ef778bdf211426d9e804192e22cd26ad in github " ensure
write_streamed_attachment bails on negative LenLeft values"
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 1.0.2 now has fixes for several serious issues. Unless there's another
>>> known one of sufficient severity I think we should get 1.0.2 as soon
>>> as we can. Can some other folks chime in with their take please?
>>>
>>> B.
>> I'm just asking for 1 or 2 days, that's not to much.
>>
>> Until there are no blocker, we can then release. I don't see any
>> reason to not do that. There have been so many fixes in 2 last week,
>> that I think it could be good to take some time to test against our
>> data. I even didn't have time to test your yesterday patch against my
>> data where it was failling.
>>
>> - benoit
>
> I'll leave it up to Paul, but the vote itself has a multi-day window, so in my opinion we can continue testing the new fixes during the voting. Best,
>
> Adam
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org>.
On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:51 AM, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1.0.2 now has fixes for several serious issues. Unless there's another
>> known one of sufficient severity I think we should get 1.0.2 as soon
>> as we can. Can some other folks chime in with their take please?
>>
>> B.
> I'm just asking for 1 or 2 days, that's not to much.
>
> Until there are no blocker, we can then release. I don't see any
> reason to not do that. There have been so many fixes in 2 last week,
> that I think it could be good to take some time to test against our
> data. I even didn't have time to test your yesterday patch against my
> data where it was failling.
>
> - benoit
I'll leave it up to Paul, but the vote itself has a multi-day window, so in my opinion we can continue testing the new fixes during the voting. Best,
Adam
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Filipe David Manana <fd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Volker Mische <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm just asking for 1 or 2 days, that's not to much.
I make Volker's words my own.
--
Filipe David Manana,
fdmanana@gmail.com, fdmanana@apache.org
"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess you all have time to test in real condition last patches, I
> didn't.
>
s/have/had
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 12 Jan 2011, at 14:06, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>
>> Vote was stopped yesterday, in any serious businness, we would wait a little.
>
> If Paul works on the release today, you're going to have 4 days to find any problems with the current code. Should that be long enough? That's twice the 1 or 2 days you mention.
That should be good. I'm blocking the time to test it today and
tomorrow at least :)
- benoit
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On 12 Jan 2011, at 14:06, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> Vote was stopped yesterday, in any serious businness, we would wait a little.
If Paul works on the release today, you're going to have 4 days to find any problems with the current code. Should that be long enough? That's twice the 1 or 2 days you mention.
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Gabriel Farrell <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Filipe David Manana
<fd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Vote was stopped yesterday, in any serious businness, we would wait a little.
>
> Apache CouchDB is not a business, it's an open source and community project.
>
> Besides that we're talking a about a minor, maintenance release.
> Nothing stops us to release a 1.0.3 one minute after if needed.
Agreed. We're incrementing a revision number here, right? Release
early, release often!
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Filipe David Manana
<fd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Vote was stopped yesterday, in any serious businness, we would wait a little.
>
> Apache CouchDB is not a business, it's an open source and community project.
>
> Besides that we're talking a about a minor, maintenance release.
> Nothing stops us to release a 1.0.3 one minute after if needed.
>
>>
>> - benoît
>>
Well just human time :) Testing is a long process as you know :)
- benoit
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Filipe David Manana <fd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vote was stopped yesterday, in any serious businness, we would wait a little.
Apache CouchDB is not a business, it's an open source and community project.
Besides that we're talking a about a minor, maintenance release.
Nothing stops us to release a 1.0.3 one minute after if needed.
>
> - benoît
>
--
Filipe David Manana,
fdmanana@gmail.com, fdmanana@apache.org
"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Filipe David Manana
>> <fd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Did the multipart API GET issue caused a problem with the current replicator???
>>>>> As far as I know, CouchDB doesn't internally use the GET multipart
>>>>> APIs. The new replicator uses it however, but it's not part of any
>>>>> official release.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That something I want to make sure. I have some problems to replicate
>>>> this warlogs data on some other nodes. I need to check their version.
>>>> There are some mixes between trunk, 1.0.1 and such around.
>>>
>>> I reiterate (and Adam can confirm): the current replicator does not
>>> use the document GET multipart APIs (multipart/related and
>>> multipart/mixed).
>>> (And neither does any other component of CouchDB)
>>>
>>>>
>> oh I trust you. I want to confirm the problem I have is due to this one.
>>
> ok tested on 4 machines. I can confirm that my replication pb was only
> betweeb 1.1x/1.2 and 1.0.1/0.11 machines. 1.0.1 -> 1.0.2 works. 1.0.2
> -> 1.1x works now too. Will do more tests toight on different
> machines.
>
> - benoît
>
I'm so confused by this thread.
Should I remake the tarballs today or not?
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Filipe David Manana
> <fd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Did the multipart API GET issue caused a problem with the current replicator???
>>>> As far as I know, CouchDB doesn't internally use the GET multipart
>>>> APIs. The new replicator uses it however, but it's not part of any
>>>> official release.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That something I want to make sure. I have some problems to replicate
>>> this warlogs data on some other nodes. I need to check their version.
>>> There are some mixes between trunk, 1.0.1 and such around.
>>
>> I reiterate (and Adam can confirm): the current replicator does not
>> use the document GET multipart APIs (multipart/related and
>> multipart/mixed).
>> (And neither does any other component of CouchDB)
>>
>>>
> oh I trust you. I want to confirm the problem I have is due to this one.
>
ok tested on 4 machines. I can confirm that my replication pb was only
betweeb 1.1x/1.2 and 1.0.1/0.11 machines. 1.0.1 -> 1.0.2 works. 1.0.2
-> 1.1x works now too. Will do more tests toight on different
machines.
- benoît
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Filipe David Manana
<fd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Did the multipart API GET issue caused a problem with the current replicator???
>>> As far as I know, CouchDB doesn't internally use the GET multipart
>>> APIs. The new replicator uses it however, but it's not part of any
>>> official release.
>>>
>>
>> That something I want to make sure. I have some problems to replicate
>> this warlogs data on some other nodes. I need to check their version.
>> There are some mixes between trunk, 1.0.1 and such around.
>
> I reiterate (and Adam can confirm): the current replicator does not
> use the document GET multipart APIs (multipart/related and
> multipart/mixed).
> (And neither does any other component of CouchDB)
>
>>
oh I trust you. I want to confirm the problem I have is due to this one.
- benoit
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Filipe David Manana <fd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Did the multipart API GET issue caused a problem with the current replicator???
>> As far as I know, CouchDB doesn't internally use the GET multipart
>> APIs. The new replicator uses it however, but it's not part of any
>> official release.
>>
>
> That something I want to make sure. I have some problems to replicate
> this warlogs data on some other nodes. I need to check their version.
> There are some mixes between trunk, 1.0.1 and such around.
I reiterate (and Adam can confirm): the current replicator does not
use the document GET multipart APIs (multipart/related and
multipart/mixed).
(And neither does any other component of CouchDB)
>
> - benoit
>
--
Filipe David Manana,
fdmanana@gmail.com, fdmanana@apache.org
"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Filipe David Manana
<fd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well vote is a formal way to test against final package. It take time
>> to prepare artefact and manage process.
>>
>> I guess you all have time to test in real condition last patches, I
>> didn't. I even guess you tested last 2 patches against final data
>> before they were closed, I didn't. Last one is important since
>> replication is a big one and was able to reproduce with current
>> replicator on another datasets around.
>
> Did the multipart API GET issue caused a problem with the current replicator???
> As far as I know, CouchDB doesn't internally use the GET multipart
> APIs. The new replicator uses it however, but it's not part of any
> official release.
>
That something I want to make sure. I have some problems to replicate
this warlogs data on some other nodes. I need to check their version.
There are some mixes between trunk, 1.0.1 and such around.
- benoit
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Filipe David Manana <fd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well vote is a formal way to test against final package. It take time
> to prepare artefact and manage process.
>
> I guess you all have time to test in real condition last patches, I
> didn't. I even guess you tested last 2 patches against final data
> before they were closed, I didn't. Last one is important since
> replication is a big one and was able to reproduce with current
> replicator on another datasets around.
Did the multipart API GET issue caused a problem with the current replicator???
As far as I know, CouchDB doesn't internally use the GET multipart
APIs. The new replicator uses it however, but it's not part of any
official release.
>
> Vote was stopped yesterday, in any serious businness, we would wait a little.
>
> - benoît
>
--
Filipe David Manana,
fdmanana@gmail.com, fdmanana@apache.org
"Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world.
Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves.
That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Volker Mische <vo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12.01.2011 14:51, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Robert Newson<ro...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 1.0.2 now has fixes for several serious issues. Unless there's another
>>> known one of sufficient severity I think we should get 1.0.2 as soon
>>> as we can. Can some other folks chime in with their take please?
>>>
>>> B.
>>
>> I'm just asking for 1 or 2 days, that's not to much.
>>
>> Until there are no blocker, we can then release. I don't see any
>> reason to not do that. There have been so many fixes in 2 last week,
>> that I think it could be good to take some time to test against our
>> data. I even didn't have time to test your yesterday patch against my
>> data where it was failling.
>>
>> - benoit
>
> For me those 1 or 2 days are the preparation of the release tarballs and
> voting phase.
>
> Cheers,
> Volker
>
Well vote is a formal way to test against final package. It take time
to prepare artefact and manage process.
I guess you all have time to test in real condition last patches, I
didn't. I even guess you tested last 2 patches against final data
before they were closed, I didn't. Last one is important since
replication is a big one and was able to reproduce with current
replicator on another datasets around.
Vote was stopped yesterday, in any serious businness, we would wait a little.
- benoît
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Volker Mische <vo...@gmail.com>.
On 12.01.2011 14:51, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Robert Newson<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1.0.2 now has fixes for several serious issues. Unless there's another
>> known one of sufficient severity I think we should get 1.0.2 as soon
>> as we can. Can some other folks chime in with their take please?
>>
>> B.
> I'm just asking for 1 or 2 days, that's not to much.
>
> Until there are no blocker, we can then release. I don't see any
> reason to not do that. There have been so many fixes in 2 last week,
> that I think it could be good to take some time to test against our
> data. I even didn't have time to test your yesterday patch against my
> data where it was failling.
>
> - benoit
For me those 1 or 2 days are the preparation of the release tarballs and
voting phase.
Cheers,
Volker
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.0.2 now has fixes for several serious issues. Unless there's another
> known one of sufficient severity I think we should get 1.0.2 as soon
> as we can. Can some other folks chime in with their take please?
>
> B.
I'm just asking for 1 or 2 days, that's not to much.
Until there are no blocker, we can then release. I don't see any
reason to not do that. There have been so many fixes in 2 last week,
that I think it could be good to take some time to test against our
data. I even didn't have time to test your yesterday patch against my
data where it was failling.
- benoit
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com>.
1.0.2 now has fixes for several serious issues. Unless there's another
known one of sufficient severity I think we should get 1.0.2 as soon
as we can. Can some other folks chime in with their take please?
B.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1.0.x now has fixes for COUCHDB-1021, COUCHDB-1022 and additional
>> protection against any other bugs that might cause
>> write_streamed_attachment to go off the rails.
>>
>> I think we can restart this process and sorry, again, for having to
>> veto the previous attempt.
>>
>> B.
>>
> I think we should give 1 or 2 days before. So we can make a final
> review on current 1.0x branch rather than discover another unseen
> thing.
>
> - benoît
>
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1.0.x now has fixes for COUCHDB-1021, COUCHDB-1022 and additional
> protection against any other bugs that might cause
> write_streamed_attachment to go off the rails.
>
> I think we can restart this process and sorry, again, for having to
> veto the previous attempt.
>
> B.
>
I think we should give 1 or 2 days before. So we can make a final
review on current 1.0x branch rather than discover another unseen
thing.
- benoît
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com>.
1.0.x now has fixes for COUCHDB-1021, COUCHDB-1022 and additional
protection against any other bugs that might cause
write_streamed_attachment to go off the rails.
I think we can restart this process and sorry, again, for having to
veto the previous attempt.
B.
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Mathias Meyer wrote:
>
>> On Dienstag, 11. Januar 2011 at 19:51, Paul Davis wrote:
>>
>>> Vote is recalled due to Robert Newson's veto.
>>>
>>> Expect round three after the bug fix.
>>>
>>>
>> Curious over here, is COUCHDB-1021 considered a common issue? I honestly wouldn't want to see this happen to us after we upgraded to 1.0.2, so if it is I'd like to see this fixed before the next 1.0.2 round, especially if it's just a tiny patch.
>
> I'm pretty sure purge+compact = forced reindexing of views 100% of the time due to that bug. Is that what you meant? Best,
>
> Adam
Re: Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 2
Posted by Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org>.
On Jan 11, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Mathias Meyer wrote:
> On Dienstag, 11. Januar 2011 at 19:51, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> Vote is recalled due to Robert Newson's veto.
>>
>> Expect round three after the bug fix.
>>
>>
> Curious over here, is COUCHDB-1021 considered a common issue? I honestly wouldn't want to see this happen to us after we upgraded to 1.0.2, so if it is I'd like to see this fixed before the next 1.0.2 round, especially if it's just a tiny patch.
I'm pretty sure purge+compact = forced reindexing of views 100% of the time due to that bug. Is that what you meant? Best,
Adam