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...@apache.org> on 2010/08/01 03:09:52 UTC
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
I saw a conversation on IRC tonight about bumping this thread. I noticed an email from J. Chris in another thread saying he wanted to hold back from 1.0.1 until something was fixed. Waiting for the all clear. Let me know.
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by J Chris Anderson <jc...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 3, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Randall Leeds wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:50, Damien Katz <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I see no problem with adding features to point releases, so long as they are unlikely to cause security/stability issues and don't change existing functionality.
>
> The patch has my review. Looks safe, simple and solid.
Thanks to Filipe who actually wrote it. I just committed it because he said he was going to sleep right then and I couldn't stand to wait.
Chris
>
>>
>> On Aug 3, 2010, at 11:46 AM, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:16 PM, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I saw a conversation on IRC tonight about bumping this thread. I noticed an email from J. Chris in another thread saying he wanted to hold back from 1.0.1 until something was fixed. Waiting for the all clear. Let me know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All clear! I don't remember suggesting we should wait, but I'll take your word for it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did I say all clear? Whoops! ;)
>>>
>>> It's come to my attention that this commit would like to be backported to 1.0.1, despite not meeting the procedural requirements for backporting. (it's a new feature)
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?revision=980985&view=revision
>>>
>>> "Add support for replication through an HTTP/HTTPS proxy."
>>>
>>> The reason is that our releases are a leaky abstraction, and Ubuntu will be freezing to a CouchDB release for their next release in a few days.
>>>
>>> Since Ubuntu is our largest install base, and they would love to be able to offer sync to users behind proxies, I am +1 on bending the rules for them.
>>>
>>> The patch itself is not technically risky, as it has no effect unless the user provides the new replicator option, so the chance of introducing bugs is very small.
>>>
>>> I am backporting this now, but of course I am open to discussion. The preemptive backport is meant to ensure that we don't forget to discuss this. If anyone is -1 on the idea, please let us know, so that we can find common ground.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On 4 Aug 2010, at 00:30, J Chris Anderson wrote:
> Generally, we are now in the pink part of the chart. Ubuntu would be happiest if we gave them releases in the yellow part of the chart. The closer it gets to the red part of the chart, the more likely they are to say it's not worth the trouble to do the work to vet / package 1.0.1. The vagueness of their schedule is part of the reason I'm suddenly feeling the rush.
I'd like to see a bit more involvement from them then.
If Ubuntu wanted to ship a copy of CouchDB taken from trunk, that had not been released yet, they could do that pretty easily. If it was that important to them, that would certainly be an option. If it is important to Ubuntu to get a specific official version of CouchDB packaged, then they need to tell us what, and by what dates it is important. If, on the other hand, it is not important to them, then it is surely not important to us either?
Either way, if Ubuntu is to be a consideration, I think we need more involvement from the Ubuntu developers. I'm not planning to delay the release any more than it is usually delayed due to procedure, but I'm not going to have a hernia trying to rush it out because of some vague idea about Ubuntu needing something soon. If down-stream groups need release co-ordination, they need to get actively involved in that.
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On 4 Aug 2010, at 01:24, J Chris Anderson wrote:
> It's probably more important to us than it is to them. I'd be more blasé about it if they were some tiny distro, but they are probably the biggest real world deployment of CouchDB, so it's extra important to do what we can to put our best foot forward there.
I agree, but we NEED some co-ordination to happen.
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by J Chris Anderson <jc...@apache.org>.
On Aug 3, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> On 4 Aug 2010, at 01:00, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
>> Agreed. This is more like: we're ready and due for a release. I started talking to some Ubuntu folks about it, and they were like "it might be too late" and I was like "even for bugfixes" and the were like "maybe it's not too late for bugfixes."
>>
>> Anyway, if we miss the boat, 1.0 will ship in the next Ubuntu release, and that's not too bad (except that it has a couple of nasty bugs replicating design docs...)
>
> If it's important to them, they could package an SVN revision.
>
> But yes, okay. : )
It's probably more important to us than it is to them. I'd be more blasé about it if they were some tiny distro, but they are probably the biggest real world deployment of CouchDB, so it's extra important to do what we can to put our best foot forward there.
Chris
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On 4 Aug 2010, at 01:00, J Chris Anderson wrote:
> Agreed. This is more like: we're ready and due for a release. I started talking to some Ubuntu folks about it, and they were like "it might be too late" and I was like "even for bugfixes" and the were like "maybe it's not too late for bugfixes."
>
> Anyway, if we miss the boat, 1.0 will ship in the next Ubuntu release, and that's not too bad (except that it has a couple of nasty bugs replicating design docs...)
If it's important to them, they could package an SVN revision.
But yes, okay. : )
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by J Chris Anderson <jc...@apache.org>.
On Aug 3, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> On 4 Aug 2010, at 00:30, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
>> Generally, we are now in the pink part of the chart. Ubuntu would be happiest if we gave them releases in the yellow part of the chart. The closer it gets to the red part of the chart, the more likely they are to say it's not worth the trouble to do the work to vet / package 1.0.1. The vagueness of their schedule is part of the reason I'm suddenly feeling the rush.
>
> To summarise my previous email: if release timing is important to you, push to get it co-ordinated before-hand. We can't be expected to care about people needing things Real Soon Now without some active involvement from them.
Agreed. This is more like: we're ready and due for a release. I started talking to some Ubuntu folks about it, and they were like "it might be too late" and I was like "even for bugfixes" and the were like "maybe it's not too late for bugfixes."
Anyway, if we miss the boat, 1.0 will ship in the next Ubuntu release, and that's not too bad (except that it has a couple of nasty bugs replicating design docs...)
Chris
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On 4 Aug 2010, at 00:30, J Chris Anderson wrote:
> Generally, we are now in the pink part of the chart. Ubuntu would be happiest if we gave them releases in the yellow part of the chart. The closer it gets to the red part of the chart, the more likely they are to say it's not worth the trouble to do the work to vet / package 1.0.1. The vagueness of their schedule is part of the reason I'm suddenly feeling the rush.
To summarise my previous email: if release timing is important to you, push to get it co-ordinated before-hand. We can't be expected to care about people needing things Real Soon Now without some active involvement from them.
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by J Chris Anderson <jc...@apache.org>.
On Aug 3, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> On 3 Aug 2010, at 23:52, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
>>>> Noah, do you mind rolling 1.0.1 so we can make the Ubuntu deadline?
>>>
>>> What exactly is the Ubuntu deadline?
>>>
>>
>> It's basically now-ish:
>>
>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MaverickReleaseSchedule
>
> I'm not sure I understand that document, to be honest. Is there a specific date, or a schedule, that we can follow? I don't like feeling like I'm rushing the release for some impending but unspecified date. I don't mind co-ordinating releases with people either, but a little more notice would be nice.
I don't understand it myself. I originally heard from some folks at Canonical that we'd have until the FinalFreeze to make our release, but now from others that we had already passed the PartnerUploadDeadline. I think the soon-approaching BetaFreeze (the 26th) is sort of an internal deadline for them.
Generally, we are now in the pink part of the chart. Ubuntu would be happiest if we gave them releases in the yellow part of the chart. The closer it gets to the red part of the chart, the more likely they are to say it's not worth the trouble to do the work to vet / package 1.0.1. The vagueness of their schedule is part of the reason I'm suddenly feeling the rush.
It seems to help that 1.0.1 is nearly 100% bugfixes, as they will be able to review the changes without much hassle.
Chris
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On 3 Aug 2010, at 23:52, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>>> Noah, do you mind rolling 1.0.1 so we can make the Ubuntu deadline?
>>
>> What exactly is the Ubuntu deadline?
>>
>
> It's basically now-ish:
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MaverickReleaseSchedule
I'm not sure I understand that document, to be honest. Is there a specific date, or a schedule, that we can follow? I don't like feeling like I'm rushing the release for some impending but unspecified date. I don't mind co-ordinating releases with people either, but a little more notice would be nice.
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by J Chris Anderson <jc...@apache.org>.
On Aug 3, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
> On 3 Aug 2010, at 21:25, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
>> I'd like to say it again. All clear!
>
> Okay.
>
>> Noah, do you mind rolling 1.0.1 so we can make the Ubuntu deadline?
>
> What exactly is the Ubuntu deadline?
>
It's basically now-ish:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MaverickReleaseSchedule
>> I've updated NEWS and CHANGES for 1.0.1.
>
> What about 0.11.2?
I did that also. (News and Changes)
Chris
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On 3 Aug 2010, at 21:25, J Chris Anderson wrote:
> I'd like to say it again. All clear!
Okay.
> Noah, do you mind rolling 1.0.1 so we can make the Ubuntu deadline?
What exactly is the Ubuntu deadline?
> I've updated NEWS and CHANGES for 1.0.1.
What about 0.11.2?
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by J Chris Anderson <jc...@apache.org>.
On Aug 3, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Randall Leeds wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:50, Damien Katz <da...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I see no problem with adding features to point releases, so long as they are unlikely to cause security/stability issues and don't change existing functionality.
>
> The patch has my review. Looks safe, simple and solid.
>
I'd like to say it again. All clear!
Noah, do you mind rolling 1.0.1 so we can make the Ubuntu deadline?
I've updated NEWS and CHANGES for 1.0.1.
Chris
>>
>> On Aug 3, 2010, at 11:46 AM, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:16 PM, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I saw a conversation on IRC tonight about bumping this thread. I noticed an email from J. Chris in another thread saying he wanted to hold back from 1.0.1 until something was fixed. Waiting for the all clear. Let me know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> All clear! I don't remember suggesting we should wait, but I'll take your word for it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did I say all clear? Whoops! ;)
>>>
>>> It's come to my attention that this commit would like to be backported to 1.0.1, despite not meeting the procedural requirements for backporting. (it's a new feature)
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?revision=980985&view=revision
>>>
>>> "Add support for replication through an HTTP/HTTPS proxy."
>>>
>>> The reason is that our releases are a leaky abstraction, and Ubuntu will be freezing to a CouchDB release for their next release in a few days.
>>>
>>> Since Ubuntu is our largest install base, and they would love to be able to offer sync to users behind proxies, I am +1 on bending the rules for them.
>>>
>>> The patch itself is not technically risky, as it has no effect unless the user provides the new replicator option, so the chance of introducing bugs is very small.
>>>
>>> I am backporting this now, but of course I am open to discussion. The preemptive backport is meant to ensure that we don't forget to discuss this. If anyone is -1 on the idea, please let us know, so that we can find common ground.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by Randall Leeds <ra...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:50, Damien Katz <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> I see no problem with adding features to point releases, so long as they are unlikely to cause security/stability issues and don't change existing functionality.
The patch has my review. Looks safe, simple and solid.
>
> On Aug 3, 2010, at 11:46 AM, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:16 PM, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>>
>>>> I saw a conversation on IRC tonight about bumping this thread. I noticed an email from J. Chris in another thread saying he wanted to hold back from 1.0.1 until something was fixed. Waiting for the all clear. Let me know.
>>>
>>>
>>> All clear! I don't remember suggesting we should wait, but I'll take your word for it.
>>>
>>
>> Did I say all clear? Whoops! ;)
>>
>> It's come to my attention that this commit would like to be backported to 1.0.1, despite not meeting the procedural requirements for backporting. (it's a new feature)
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?revision=980985&view=revision
>>
>> "Add support for replication through an HTTP/HTTPS proxy."
>>
>> The reason is that our releases are a leaky abstraction, and Ubuntu will be freezing to a CouchDB release for their next release in a few days.
>>
>> Since Ubuntu is our largest install base, and they would love to be able to offer sync to users behind proxies, I am +1 on bending the rules for them.
>>
>> The patch itself is not technically risky, as it has no effect unless the user provides the new replicator option, so the chance of introducing bugs is very small.
>>
>> I am backporting this now, but of course I am open to discussion. The preemptive backport is meant to ensure that we don't forget to discuss this. If anyone is -1 on the idea, please let us know, so that we can find common ground.
>>
>> Chris
>>
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by Damien Katz <da...@apache.org>.
I see no problem with adding features to point releases, so long as they are unlikely to cause security/stability issues and don't change existing functionality.
Is there a protocol somewhere about this?
-Damien
On Aug 3, 2010, at 11:46 AM, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:16 PM, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>
>>> I saw a conversation on IRC tonight about bumping this thread. I noticed an email from J. Chris in another thread saying he wanted to hold back from 1.0.1 until something was fixed. Waiting for the all clear. Let me know.
>>
>>
>> All clear! I don't remember suggesting we should wait, but I'll take your word for it.
>>
>
> Did I say all clear? Whoops! ;)
>
> It's come to my attention that this commit would like to be backported to 1.0.1, despite not meeting the procedural requirements for backporting. (it's a new feature)
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?revision=980985&view=revision
>
> "Add support for replication through an HTTP/HTTPS proxy."
>
> The reason is that our releases are a leaky abstraction, and Ubuntu will be freezing to a CouchDB release for their next release in a few days.
>
> Since Ubuntu is our largest install base, and they would love to be able to offer sync to users behind proxies, I am +1 on bending the rules for them.
>
> The patch itself is not technically risky, as it has no effect unless the user provides the new replicator option, so the chance of introducing bugs is very small.
>
> I am backporting this now, but of course I am open to discussion. The preemptive backport is meant to ensure that we don't forget to discuss this. If anyone is -1 on the idea, please let us know, so that we can find common ground.
>
> Chris
>
>
>> I definitely reverted and redid one of the patches that I backported to 1.0.x, but that's all cleaned up now.
>>
>> I think we are in the clear. Plus I'm excited to start working on 1.0.2.
>>
>> We should also roll 0.11.3 at this time.
>>
>> Chris
>
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
On 3 Aug 2010, at 20:46, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:16 PM, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>>
>>> I saw a conversation on IRC tonight about bumping this thread. I noticed an email from J. Chris in another thread saying he wanted to hold back from 1.0.1 until something was fixed. Waiting for the all clear. Let me know.
>>
>>
>> All clear! I don't remember suggesting we should wait, but I'll take your word for it.
>>
>
> Did I say all clear? Whoops! ;)
>
> It's come to my attention that this commit would like to be backported to 1.0.1, despite not meeting the procedural requirements for backporting. (it's a new feature)
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?revision=980985&view=revision
>
> "Add support for replication through an HTTP/HTTPS proxy."
>
> The reason is that our releases are a leaky abstraction, and Ubuntu will be freezing to a CouchDB release for their next release in a few days.
>
> Since Ubuntu is our largest install base, and they would love to be able to offer sync to users behind proxies, I am +1 on bending the rules for them.
>
> The patch itself is not technically risky, as it has no effect unless the user provides the new replicator option, so the chance of introducing bugs is very small.
>
> I am backporting this now, but of course I am open to discussion. The preemptive backport is meant to ensure that we don't forget to discuss this. If anyone is -1 on the idea, please let us know, so that we can find common ground.
No objections, the patch is good and simple.
Cheers
Jan
--
>
> Chris
>
>
>> I definitely reverted and redid one of the patches that I backported to 1.0.x, but that's all cleaned up now.
>>
>> I think we are in the clear. Plus I'm excited to start working on 1.0.2.
>>
>> We should also roll 0.11.3 at this time.
>>
>> Chris
>
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by J Chris Anderson <jc...@apache.org>.
On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:16 PM, J Chris Anderson wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
>
>> I saw a conversation on IRC tonight about bumping this thread. I noticed an email from J. Chris in another thread saying he wanted to hold back from 1.0.1 until something was fixed. Waiting for the all clear. Let me know.
>
>
> All clear! I don't remember suggesting we should wait, but I'll take your word for it.
>
Did I say all clear? Whoops! ;)
It's come to my attention that this commit would like to be backported to 1.0.1, despite not meeting the procedural requirements for backporting. (it's a new feature)
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?revision=980985&view=revision
"Add support for replication through an HTTP/HTTPS proxy."
The reason is that our releases are a leaky abstraction, and Ubuntu will be freezing to a CouchDB release for their next release in a few days.
Since Ubuntu is our largest install base, and they would love to be able to offer sync to users behind proxies, I am +1 on bending the rules for them.
The patch itself is not technically risky, as it has no effect unless the user provides the new replicator option, so the chance of introducing bugs is very small.
I am backporting this now, but of course I am open to discussion. The preemptive backport is meant to ensure that we don't forget to discuss this. If anyone is -1 on the idea, please let us know, so that we can find common ground.
Chris
> I definitely reverted and redid one of the patches that I backported to 1.0.x, but that's all cleaned up now.
>
> I think we are in the clear. Plus I'm excited to start working on 1.0.2.
>
> We should also roll 0.11.3 at this time.
>
> Chris
Re: RFC: Releasing 1.0.1
Posted by J Chris Anderson <jc...@apache.org>.
On Jul 31, 2010, at 6:09 PM, Noah Slater wrote:
> I saw a conversation on IRC tonight about bumping this thread. I noticed an email from J. Chris in another thread saying he wanted to hold back from 1.0.1 until something was fixed. Waiting for the all clear. Let me know.
All clear! I don't remember suggesting we should wait, but I'll take your word for it.
I definitely reverted and redid one of the patches that I backported to 1.0.x, but that's all cleaned up now.
I think we are in the clear. Plus I'm excited to start working on 1.0.2.
We should also roll 0.11.3 at this time.
Chris