couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <>
Subject Re: Backporting bug fixes to 0.9
Date Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:17:03 GMT

On 13 Apr 2009, at 19:45, Paul Davis wrote:

> Is there a reason to not just take current trunk and tag it as 0.9.1?
> I'd be +1 for making some sort of release tarball with Jan's listed
> commits.

I'm not proposing cutting a release just yet, just making sure we
define which commits go into the 0.9.x tree. I'd -1 using trunk to
cut 0.9.1; just for good practice. We do have the 0.9.x branch
and with the practice of "backporting" we make sure that we
don't step on each other in two branches and accidentally
commit stuff to the "stable" branch that is only meant for
"unstable" trunk. Right now it seems overkill but past
experience has shown that this is a good practice to keep

I'd rather examine each commit then just cutting from trunk
now. For example:

refactor: extract method from doc_flush_binaries. add with_stream/2 to  
handle automatically opening and closing binary streams: seems a good
candidate to not go into 0.9.1


> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Jan Lehnardt <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> as I understand trunk is now effectively 0.10-dev. Do we want to
>> maintain the 0.9.x branch and backport some of the bug fixes that
>> go into trunk? (I'd say yes we do.)
>> If yes, I'd like to propose the following commits to be backported:
>> Fixes for leaked file handles, with test:
>> (not sure if it is possible with the other changes near that commit)
>> Fix for attachment sparseness bug COUCHDB-220 by giving each  
>> attachment it's
>> own stream and calling set_min_buffer instead of ensure_buffer.  
>> Also fixed
>> spurious couch_file crash messages by putting the statistics  
>> decrement code
>> into a seperate monitoring process:
>> (Again, not sure, if it is really possible)
>> Use now_diff instead of statistics(runtime). Closes COUCHDB-316:
>> (Should be simple)
>> And all updates to the README that are not 0.10 specific:
>> And I believe Noah had at least one fix for the build
>> system, but I don't know which one. Noah?
>> Any commits I missed?
>> What do you think?
>> Cheers
>> Jan
>> --

View raw message