0.10.1

[Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>]

Hi All,

we've seen a bunch of fixes in the 0.10.x branch that
warrant a 0.10.1 release. I think now is a good time to
cut it.

Are there any outstanding issues in 0.10 that you
would like to see fixed in 0.10.1 or do you have
any other objections against starting the release
procedure?

(This is not a vote, no need to send +1 replies just
yet. If you have any objections though, please
speak up! :)

Cheers
Jan
--

Re: 0.10.1

[Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org>]

Hi Robert, I believe that's done.  A simple merge didn't work because  
of divergences in the code base, but in r832780 I wrote an 0.10  
version of the fix.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-559 bothers me a little  
bit.  The problem is that folks on 0.9.1 cannot trigger a replication  
to/from 0.10.0 because of a list_to_existing_atom error.  We could fix  
this by suppressing the disk_format_version field from 0.10.1's  
response to GET /dbname.  I don't know of any other solution at the  
moment.

I guess I'd be OK with saying that replication between 0.10.x and  
0.9.x only works if you trigger it on the 0.10.x machine, although  
that's a bit annoying.  Anyone else have an opinion?

Best, Adam

On Nov 4, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Robert Newson wrote:

> As mentioned on IRC, we should backport the schedule bug fix. The
> symptom is 100% cpu usage on systems that sleep and then resume.
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman  
> <dj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 17:31, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> we've seen a bunch of fixes in the 0.10.x branch that
>>> warrant a 0.10.1 release. I think now is a good time to
>>> cut it.
>>
>> Sounds great to me. Is there a changelog somewhere noting the fixes  
>> so far?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dirkjan
>>

Re: 0.10.1

[Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>]

On 4 Nov 2009, at 17:43, Robert Newson wrote:

> As mentioned on IRC, we should backport the schedule bug fix. The
> symptom is 100% cpu usage on systems that sleep and then resume.

This was just backported (Thanks Adam).

Cheers
Jan
--

>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman  
> <dj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 17:31, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> we've seen a bunch of fixes in the 0.10.x branch that
>>> warrant a 0.10.1 release. I think now is a good time to
>>> cut it.
>>
>> Sounds great to me. Is there a changelog somewhere noting the fixes  
>> so far?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dirkjan
>>
>

Re: 0.10.1

[Robert Newson <ro...@gmail.com>]

As mentioned on IRC, we should backport the schedule bug fix. The
symptom is 100% cpu usage on systems that sleep and then resume.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 17:31, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> we've seen a bunch of fixes in the 0.10.x branch that
>> warrant a 0.10.1 release. I think now is a good time to
>> cut it.
>
> Sounds great to me. Is there a changelog somewhere noting the fixes so far?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dirkjan
>

Re: 0.10.1

[Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>]

On 4 Nov 2009, at 17:39, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 17:31, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> we've seen a bunch of fixes in the 0.10.x branch that
>> warrant a 0.10.1 release. I think now is a good time to
>> cut it.
>
> Sounds great to me. Is there a changelog somewhere noting the fixes  
> so far?

See: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/couchdb/branches/0.10.x/NEWS?view=markup

Cheers
Jan
--

Re: 0.10.1

[Dirkjan Ochtman <dj...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 17:31, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> we've seen a bunch of fixes in the 0.10.x branch that
> warrant a 0.10.1 release. I think now is a good time to
> cut it.

Sounds great to me. Is there a changelog somewhere noting the fixes so far?

Cheers,

Dirkjan