From dev-return-5922-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Mon Aug 17 22:14:50 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 27615 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2009 22:14:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 17 Aug 2009 22:14:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 22736 invoked by uid 500); 17 Aug 2009 22:15:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 22642 invoked by uid 500); 17 Aug 2009 22:15:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 22632 invoked by uid 99); 17 Aug 2009 22:15:07 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:15:07 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com designates 209.85.132.241 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.132.241] (HELO an-out-0708.google.com) (209.85.132.241) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:14:56 +0000 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b2so1180917ana.5 for ; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:14:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=yuGjL0C/84hEGkGRQ18TOzEueFc+TDeRVMWE0CB5sVc=; b=m6PTZqMTxWPJYP7nAUeyfTKdN/cf4dKGjmk9zpoJMfBeQl2N7jHt/3NcxOQlMEJ7Nu GAn3CuzMZW+769G5LenGKm1XeIf5lkkWmTPwpfIJTRQN73leagmTPxAUQ2wxTw+AmeWh 6c4j5CbTxQSgoIHQZNmG8bgOw+sSePMZPtSpc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=AkesWjUt1AGjxsyM2tOdDF1wtr30AGPq6ytRQ8ZQQo5lRY78YZhXGLRXrBCyBXjKyO 0pv9UHPhxqQ3k7UIm1+Mi7Deeq0Y1IQKed8AMuBM2aKdBerBrP1GHpOjF7SgIkHnSj1L IgYY5Zm0MDY1s/mZkLrlfopS/P/HzkjxkgqHs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.113.7 with SMTP id q7mr4069939anm.196.1250547275250; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:14:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090817213907.GB9968@tumbolia.org> References: <739FAA72-2760-4653-9E7A-EF16C523CBFE@apache.org> <20090817213907.GB9968@tumbolia.org> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:14:35 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Ready for 0.10 Release? From: Paul Davis To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org > I'm quite prepared for someone to make a really good argument that convinces me > otherwise, but for now, I don't think this is how our releases should work. I definitely agree with your sentiment that we shouldn't just be pushing untested features into releases and letting the user community deal with any bugs that turn up, but I don't think that letting a patch "simmer" is the right answer either. If you're want to only include mature patches into a release, then we should settle on a way to measure maturity. The easiest method I can think of is making sure that features are well tested before included into a release. I'd say that in general we're not too bad on the testing front. There are a couple places that we need to work on, and hopefully when the build bot instance comes up I'll be able to start adding more tools to help us keep track of our code base. That said, the specific Windows patch mostly affects the build system and introduces a bit of Windows specific code. Once that patch lands I reckon its going to be pretty obvious whether something broke or not. And if we introduce a non-obvious bug the fastest way I can think of triggering it would be to make a release. So basically, "Release Early, Release Often" [1]. HTH, Paul Davis [1] http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html