Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jchris@gmail.com designates
 209.85.132.249 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
         :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=H6LIhpAORskci/RJsm+HZ2QnYc+9PAEu0hYiZ9V0mm4jZwrqcYj4XQB+tSt43Wuz1i
         075HgjjMosuHxcrsoWy4AuR50wlOmACrI00U/W+j6sNbz93oAaSTOc9X9zbPJOcS3CEH
         K0bOZJJjNCGj4V2i5qRqCneAydpXA6FVBprYE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: jchris@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <e2111bbb0905050736t4ac8304ckb8aa91e14f30316d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e282921e0905041832j40bcf06ax1476d97cd81df71f@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090505013709.GB24571@tumbolia.org> <49FFB420.6000706@gmail.com>
	 <e282921e0905042042g2780761l6c52f1962fc823e8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49FFB937.1080800@gmail.com> <20090505115619.GB31294@tumbolia.org>
	 <4A002E1A.5060406@gmail.com>
	 <e282921e0905050730x60695f0dj58bc40915130f709@mail.gmail.com>
	 <e2111bbb0905050736t4ac8304ckb8aa91e14f30316d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 07:59:00 -0700
Message-ID: <e282921e0905050759t33588667o351ddf017702a383@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Release 0.9.1
From: Chris Anderson <jchris@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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