You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> on 2009/11/16 20:23:14 UTC
Problem releasing 0.9.2
Hey,
Trying to build the 0.9.x branch on Debian unstable gives the
following error:
couch_js.c: In function 'main':
couch_js.c:1218: error: 'JSOPTION_NATIVE_BRANCH_CALLBACK' undeclared
(first use in this function)
couch_js.c:1218: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only
once
couch_js.c:1218: error: for each function it appears in.)
I am unable to release until this is fixed, and am holding back on
0.10.1 incase we need to port forward.
Does anyone have any clues?
Thanks,
Noah
Re: Problem releasing 0.9.2
Posted by Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org>.
On Nov 16, 2009, at 3:25 PM, Paul Davis wrote:
> I was wondering idly the other day if there's actually been any backports to 0.9.x since the 0.9.1 release.
Just one -- I patched the replicator to fix the list_to_existing_atom bug that made it impossible for 0.9.x <-> 0.10.x replications to be initiated on the 0.9 machine. See COUCHDB-559. Best,
Adam
Re: Problem releasing 0.9.2
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>
> On 16 Nov 2009, at 21:38, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>>>> I was wondering idly the other day if there's actually been any
>>>> backports
>>>> to 0.9.x since the 0.9.1 release.
>>>
>>> What happened when the 0 9 1 release?
>>
>> People rejoiced.
>
> You realise that the rest of the email was pasted directly from M-x doctor,
> the Emacs therapist?
>
>
Noper, but it makes sense that Emacs has a built-in therapy module for
all of its users that are obviously suffering through some sort of
aversion to decent software.
HTH,
Paul Davis
Re: Problem releasing 0.9.2
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
On 16 Nov 2009, at 21:38, Paul Davis wrote:
>>> I was wondering idly the other day if there's actually been any
>>> backports
>>> to 0.9.x since the 0.9.1 release.
>>
>> What happened when the 0 9 1 release?
>
> People rejoiced.
You realise that the rest of the email was pasted directly from M-x
doctor, the Emacs therapist?
Re: Problem releasing 0.9.2
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2009, at 20:25, Paul "Smartass" Davis wrote:
>
>> Noah "Awesome" Slater,
>>
>> 1.9.1.4? That's quite interesting. Because 1.8.1 isn't out yet. And
>> Spidermonkey doesn't use a 4 digit numbering scheme.
>
> SpiderMonkey is part of the XULRunner package:
>
> "XULRunner 1.9.1 has been released and can be downloaded from
> releases.mozilla.org."
>
> https://developer.mozilla.org/En/XULRunner
>
> Oh snap, looks like you're wrong Mr. Smarty Man.
>
>> Obviously your computer has been compromised by the alien overlords in
>> preparation for your removal. I would invest in a tent and bottled water so
>> you can hide in the forest when they come to collect you. I bid you farewell
>> and godspeed on your travels while evading your soon to be captors. Granted,
>> the packagers could just be referencing the Firefox/XUL Runner version.
>
> Oh well, that'll teach me to respond before reading the full email.
>
> I will keep my original response above for the lulz.
Major lulz. Also, the version mismatching is a known weirdoness.
Supposedly Spidermonkey is going to skip a version at some point so
that it maintains similar versioning to Firefox/XUL Walker.
>> Either way, that's gonna be an issue as that API was deprecated in 1.8.0.
>> And then changed again in 1.8.1 which doesn't exist yet. That patch isn't
>> terribly difficult. I'll should be able to get to it tonight.
>
> Not sure I follow.
Spidermonkey broked their API compatibility. There's a ticket or email
somewhere that discusses it. Basically, I'll probably just delete that
code as we trigger GC in lots of places and the replacement we have in
trunk doesn't actually do anything because we never trigger it. The
suggested fix is to setup a thread that signals the main process to
run that call back which maybe triggers GC. It's all very exciting
stuff.
>> Although, did you check the SVN log for the 0.9.x branch
>
> Yes, I made sure this was added to CHANGES:
>
> Version 0.9.2
> -------------
>
> * Fix replication with 0.10+ servers initiated by an 0.9 server
> (COUCHDB-559).
>
> Oh snap, did I totally just school you again?
Yes. You have successfully flexed your SVN-fu muscles. Consider me
awed. Observing unabashedly with mouth agape. Tell me, did the walls
flex when you did that? Like at the end of that one movie?
>
>> I was wondering idly the other day if there's actually been any backports
>> to 0.9.x since the 0.9.1 release.
>
> What happened when the 0 9 1 release?
People rejoiced.
>> Granted it wasn't intriguing enough of a thought since I didn't bother to
>> flip to the terminal and run the necessary commands to find out for myself.
>
> What would happen if you didn't bother to flip to the terminal and run the
> necessary commands to find out for yourself?
I would've kept on trusting you to have made sure that there had been
commits. As you pointed out above you had done. My trust in you has
been vindicated. This time...
>> Mostly because that would've reminded me that I still have to use SVN
>> occasionally.
>
> Is it because that would've reminded you that you still have to use svn
> occasionally that you came to me?
Well, technically to the list, though admittedly I did address you
specifically in my reply as I was replying to you, but in a method
that would allow for others to provide an opinion. This was
demonstrated by Adam's electronic correspondence on the single commit
to the 0.9.x branch since the release of 0.9.1.
>> And generally I have to take a shower each time I have to confront that
>> fact.
>
> Can you elaborate on that?
To what end?
>> Which, as you might imagine, can be a bit complicated when answering such
>> emails at work.
>
> What happened when answering such emails at work?
Well, so far the world hasn't ended. Other than that, not a whole lot.
>> Its a thing I've been working through with my psychiatrist.
>
> Why do you say that?
I wanted to assure people that I was seeking professional help for my
SVN issues and that I wasn't going to end up writing a new operating
system kernel, building an international community of members and then
get stuck with writing a new distributed version control system due to
my dissatisfaction with the existing tools for such things. Ie,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8
>> Progress has been mostly slow but I really feel like I might get past it
>> at some point in the future now.
>
> Does it bother you that you really feel like you might get past it at some
> point in the future now?
It does. Without something at which to direct my negative feelings,
its a tad worrisome what I might use to fill that void.
>> Granted that doesn't mean I'm quite through it.
>
> When did you first know that does not mean you are quite through it?
The showering is the major issue at the moment.
>> The emotional scarring runs deep.
>
> Earlier you said that would've reminded you that you still have to use svn
> occasionally?
Its hard to discuss it for any length of time as I tend to confuse myself.
>> Can I be a mongoose dog?
>
> That is interesting, please continue.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1i0iWJahPY&NR=1
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23CejJV6WFg&feature=related
Also also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1NyGmn4D80&feature=related
HTH,
Paul Davis
Re: Problem releasing 0.9.2
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
On 16 Nov 2009, at 20:25, Paul "Smartass" Davis wrote:
> Noah "Awesome" Slater,
>
> 1.9.1.4? That's quite interesting. Because 1.8.1 isn't out yet. And
> Spidermonkey doesn't use a 4 digit numbering scheme.
SpiderMonkey is part of the XULRunner package:
"XULRunner 1.9.1 has been released and can be downloaded from
releases.mozilla.org."
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/XULRunner
Oh snap, looks like you're wrong Mr. Smarty Man.
> Obviously your computer has been compromised by the alien overlords
> in preparation for your removal. I would invest in a tent and
> bottled water so you can hide in the forest when they come to
> collect you. I bid you farewell and godspeed on your travels while
> evading your soon to be captors. Granted, the packagers could just
> be referencing the Firefox/XUL Runner version.
Oh well, that'll teach me to respond before reading the full email.
I will keep my original response above for the lulz.
> Either way, that's gonna be an issue as that API was deprecated in
> 1.8.0. And then changed again in 1.8.1 which doesn't exist yet. That
> patch isn't terribly difficult. I'll should be able to get to it
> tonight.
Not sure I follow.
> Although, did you check the SVN log for the 0.9.x branch
Yes, I made sure this was added to CHANGES:
Version 0.9.2
-------------
* Fix replication with 0.10+ servers initiated by an 0.9 server
(COUCHDB-559).
Oh snap, did I totally just school you again?
> I was wondering idly the other day if there's actually been any
> backports to 0.9.x since the 0.9.1 release.
What happened when the 0 9 1 release?
> Granted it wasn't intriguing enough of a thought since I didn't
> bother to flip to the terminal and run the necessary commands to
> find out for myself.
What would happen if you didn't bother to flip to the terminal and run
the necessary commands to find out for yourself?
> Mostly because that would've reminded me that I still have to use
> SVN occasionally.
Is it because that would've reminded you that you still have to use
svn occasionally that you came to me?
> And generally I have to take a shower each time I have to confront
> that fact.
Can you elaborate on that?
> Which, as you might imagine, can be a bit complicated when answering
> such emails at work.
What happened when answering such emails at work?
> Its a thing I've been working through with my psychiatrist.
Why do you say that?
> Progress has been mostly slow but I really feel like I might get
> past it at some point in the future now.
Does it bother you that you really feel like you might get past it at
some point in the future now?
> Granted that doesn't mean I'm quite through it.
When did you first know that does not mean you are quite through it?
> The emotional scarring runs deep.
Earlier you said that would've reminded you that you still have to use
svn occasionally?
> Can I be a mongoose dog?
That is interesting, please continue.
Re: Problem releasing 0.9.2
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>
> On 16 Nov 2009, at 19:27, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> What version of Spidermonkey are you running?
>
> 1.9.1.4
>
>> The 0.10.x branch has been patched to
>> work with newer versions. Is this something we should patch, or should
>> I just have the check say "Your version of spidermonkey is too new" or
>> something else?
>
> If you like, but that would also prevent me from releasing. ;)
>
> I'm not about to downgrade my system to make the release, as such a thing
> isn't possible.
>
> How hard will the backport be?
>
>
Noah "Awesome" Slater,
1.9.1.4? That's quite interesting. Because 1.8.1 isn't out yet. And
Spidermonkey doesn't use a 4 digit numbering scheme. Obviously your
computer has been compromised by the alien overlords in preparation
for your removal. I would invest in a tent and bottled water so you
can hide in the forest when they come to collect you. I bid you
farewell and godspeed on your travels while evading your soon to be
captors. Granted, the packagers could just be referencing the
Firefox/XUL Runner version.
Either way, that's gonna be an issue as that API was deprecated in
1.8.0. And then changed again in 1.8.1 which doesn't exist yet. That
patch isn't terribly difficult. I'll should be able to get to it
tonight.
Although, did you check the SVN log for the 0.9.x branch? I was
wondering idly the other day if there's actually been any backports to
0.9.x since the 0.9.1 release. Granted it wasn't intriguing enough of
a thought since I didn't bother to flip to the terminal and run the
necessary commands to find out for myself. Mostly because that
would've reminded me that I still have to use SVN occasionally. And
generally I have to take a shower each time I have to confront that
fact. Which, as you might imagine, can be a bit complicated when
answering such emails at work. Its a thing I've been working through
with my psychiatrist. Progress has been mostly slow but I really feel
like I might get past it at some point in the future now. Granted that
doesn't mean I'm quite through it. The emotional scarring runs deep.
Can I be a mongoose dog?
HTH,
Paul Davis
Re: Problem releasing 0.9.2
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
On 21 Nov 2009, at 17:14, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> That wasn't the whole story. I now backported (r882928) all of
> COUCHDB-288 to the 0.9.x branch and tested it with the old
> and new libmozjs. I think we (Noah) can roll the release now.
>
> Noah, I accidentally committed to the 0.9.2 tag at first. I believe
> you're going to delete it prior to packaging anyway, so I didn't
> bother reverting my mistake.
Thanks! I'll get to this very soon.
Re: Problem releasing 0.9.2
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
On 18 Nov 2009, at 00:13, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On 17 Nov 2009, at 16:20, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
>>
>> On 16 Nov 2009, at 20:33, Noah Slater wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 16 Nov 2009, at 19:27, Paul Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> What version of Spidermonkey are you running?
>>>
>>> 1.9.1.4
>>>
>>>> The 0.10.x branch has been patched to
>>>> work with newer versions. Is this something we should patch, or should
>>>> I just have the check say "Your version of spidermonkey is too new" or
>>>> something else?
>>>
>>> If you like, but that would also prevent me from releasing. ;)
>>>
>>> I'm not about to downgrade my system to make the release, as such a thing isn't possible.
>>>
>>> How hard will the backport be?
>>>
>>
>> I am okay with 0.9.x not supporting newer spidermonkeys.
>>
>> I'm happy to set you up with a box that has the correct dependencies installed to make the release.
>
> It was indeed very simple. I committed a fix for 0.9.2.
> Thanks Paul for pointing in the right directions and
> verifying. Thanks Noah for testing.
That wasn't the whole story. I now backported (r882928) all of
COUCHDB-288 to the 0.9.x branch and tested it with the old
and new libmozjs. I think we (Noah) can roll the release now.
Noah, I accidentally committed to the 0.9.2 tag at first. I believe
you're going to delete it prior to packaging anyway, so I didn't
bother reverting my mistake.
Cheers
Jan
--
Re: Problem releasing 0.9.2
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
On 17 Nov 2009, at 16:20, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> On 16 Nov 2009, at 20:33, Noah Slater wrote:
>
>>
>> On 16 Nov 2009, at 19:27, Paul Davis wrote:
>>
>>> What version of Spidermonkey are you running?
>>
>> 1.9.1.4
>>
>>> The 0.10.x branch has been patched to
>>> work with newer versions. Is this something we should patch, or should
>>> I just have the check say "Your version of spidermonkey is too new" or
>>> something else?
>>
>> If you like, but that would also prevent me from releasing. ;)
>>
>> I'm not about to downgrade my system to make the release, as such a thing isn't possible.
>>
>> How hard will the backport be?
>>
>
> I am okay with 0.9.x not supporting newer spidermonkeys.
>
> I'm happy to set you up with a box that has the correct dependencies installed to make the release.
It was indeed very simple. I committed a fix for 0.9.2.
Thanks Paul for pointing in the right directions and
verifying. Thanks Noah for testing.
Cheers
Jan
--
Re: Problem releasing 0.9.2
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
On 16 Nov 2009, at 20:33, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> On 16 Nov 2009, at 19:27, Paul Davis wrote:
>
>> What version of Spidermonkey are you running?
>
> 1.9.1.4
>
>> The 0.10.x branch has been patched to
>> work with newer versions. Is this something we should patch, or should
>> I just have the check say "Your version of spidermonkey is too new" or
>> something else?
>
> If you like, but that would also prevent me from releasing. ;)
>
> I'm not about to downgrade my system to make the release, as such a thing isn't possible.
>
> How hard will the backport be?
>
I am okay with 0.9.x not supporting newer spidermonkeys.
I'm happy to set you up with a box that has the correct dependencies installed to make the release.
Cheers
Jan
--
Re: Problem releasing 0.9.2
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org>.
On 16 Nov 2009, at 19:27, Paul Davis wrote:
> What version of Spidermonkey are you running?
1.9.1.4
> The 0.10.x branch has been patched to
> work with newer versions. Is this something we should patch, or should
> I just have the check say "Your version of spidermonkey is too new" or
> something else?
If you like, but that would also prevent me from releasing. ;)
I'm not about to downgrade my system to make the release, as such a
thing isn't possible.
How hard will the backport be?
Re: Problem releasing 0.9.2
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Trying to build the 0.9.x branch on Debian unstable gives the following
> error:
>
> couch_js.c: In function 'main':
> couch_js.c:1218: error: 'JSOPTION_NATIVE_BRANCH_CALLBACK' undeclared (first
> use in this function)
> couch_js.c:1218: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> couch_js.c:1218: error: for each function it appears in.)
>
> I am unable to release until this is fixed, and am holding back on 0.10.1
> incase we need to port forward.
>
> Does anyone have any clues?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Noah
>
>
What version of Spidermonkey are you running? IIRC, this is caused by
having something newer than 1.7. The 0.10.x branch has been patched to
work with newer versions. Is this something we should patch, or should
I just have the check say "Your version of spidermonkey is too new" or
something else?
Paul Davis