couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Release 0.9.1
Date Tue, 05 May 2009 15:53:03 GMT
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Chris Anderson <jchris@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:36 AM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Chris Anderson <jchris@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>> Noah Slater wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 11:57:43PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That said, what keeps us from 0.10? I did contemplate the the jump
from
>>>>>> 0.9 isn't as big as the jump from 0.8. Though, I would probably say
that
>>>>>> the jump from 0.8 to 0.9 was fairly delayed. At the moment there
are at
>>>>>> least three new features: config.d updates, bulk=ok, and the reduce
>>>>>> warnings; none of which seem like only a $(REVISON) change. To me
that
>>>>>> doesn't seem like something to ignore but I would be perfectly happy
>>>>>> referring to version numbers via subversion revision so I'm a bit
not
>>>>>> normal on that front.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just to be clear, my configuration changes were not merged back.
>>>>>
>>>>> What changes, specifically, do you think should be pulled from the 0.9.x
>>>>> branch?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't the slightest cause I have no idea what the guidelines are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure the guidelines are: in the 0.9.x branch, fix bugs,
>>> don't change behavior in a way that would break clients.
>>>
>>> Bad candidates for 0.9.x: the reduce_limit patch I just applied to
>>> trunk, changes in query-string validation, totally new features like
>>> batch=ok
>>>
>>> Good candidates for 0.9.x: reduce sparseness in db files, make
>>> replication more complete/reliable, fix arbitrary resource limits
>>> (like the 100+ open dbs bug)
>>>
>>> I think that's pretty clear, but don't hesitate to ask if it could be
>>> more clear.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chris Anderson
>>> http://jchrisa.net
>>> http://couch.io
>>>
>>
>> Sounds good. I'll have to figure out how to un-merge a couple patches
>> to 0.9.x then because I definitely pushed a couple that would break
>> client code relying on some of the different parameters being silently
>> ignored.
>>
>> Anyone have any idea on how one does that in SVN?
>>
>
> I think you can follow these instruction to back out the revisions in
> which your backport merges were committed to 0.9.x
>
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.branchmerge.basicmerging.html#svn.branchmerge.basicmerging.undo
>
> Hope that helps!
>
> Chris
>
>
> --
> Chris Anderson
> http://jchrisa.net
> http://couch.io
>

Chris,

Awesome. I'll go through what I backported and un-backport (forward
port?) them tonight. Also, how did I ever like svn?

Paul

Mime
View raw message