From dev-return-6594-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Mon Sep 21 23:00:00 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 42662 invoked from network); 21 Sep 2009 23:00:00 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Sep 2009 23:00:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 12089 invoked by uid 500); 21 Sep 2009 22:59:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 12019 invoked by uid 500); 21 Sep 2009 22:59:59 -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 12009 invoked by uid 99); 21 Sep 2009 22:59:59 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:59:59 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.1 required=10.0 tests=DATE_IN_PAST_06_12,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [83.97.50.139] (HELO jan.prima.de) (83.97.50.139) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:59:50 +0000 Received: from [192.168.10.108] ([::ffff:79.97.126.82]) (AUTH: LOGIN jan, TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,AES128-SHA) by jan.prima.de with esmtp; Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:59:27 +0000 Message-Id: From: Jan Lehnardt To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7A400) Subject: Re: Second call for objections releasing 0.10 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:50:35 +0100 References: <20090920130655.GG29736@tumbolia.org> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (7A400) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 21.09.2009, at 06:08, Benoit Chesneau wrote: > On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Chris Anderson >> That's the sort of thing that'd get backported for 0.10.1 anyway, >> so I >> don't think it's a blocker. Also, probably a fairly easy patch. >> >> Chris >> > Well it's really annoying to have such error in logs when you are in > production. I've also updated the bug : when you delete a db witch is > continuously replicatedit create an error too on the machine handling > replication when I delete a database on source. There maybe other side > effect. > > More over, due to apache process, 10.1 could appear very long time > after 10.0 and imo having this known obvious errors fixed before the > release may be better. I think I see where this is coming from, but rather see it perceived that bugfix updates to a stable branch should happen in a timely manner. We can't hold back releases forever and we should demonstrate that we can release 0.10.1 quickly, if needed. I hope this addresses your concern. Cheers Jan -- >