couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Anderson <jch...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Backporting bug fixes to 0.9
Date Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:23:36 GMT
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>
> 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
> up.
>
> 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:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=764257&view=rev seems a good
> candidate to not go into 0.9.1
>

Maybe... I'd argue it can go in as it doesn't change behavior, just
makes the code a little more readable. But then again, maybe I
introduced a bug (hope not)...

Anyway, there are a few non-0.9 commits, so now that I read the log I
think cherry picking is in order.

>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> 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:
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=763858&view=rev
>>> (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:
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=763816&view=rev
>>> (Again, not sure, if it is really possible)
>>>
>>> Use now_diff instead of statistics(runtime). Closes COUCHDB-316:
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=762019&view=rev
>>> (Should be simple)
>>>
>>> And all updates to the README that are not 0.10 specific:
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=761352&view=rev
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=761343&view=rev
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=760538&view=rev
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=760537&view=rev
>>>
>>> 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
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Chris Anderson
http://jchrisa.net
http://couch.io

Mime
View raw message