couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <>
Subject Re: Problem releasing 0.9.2
Date Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:38:25 GMT
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Noah Slater <> wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2009, at 20:25, Paul "Smartass" Davis wrote:
>> Noah "Awesome" Slater,
>> That's quite interesting. Because 1.8.1 isn't out yet. And
>> Spidermonkey doesn't use a 4 digit numbering scheme.
> SpiderMonkey is part of the XULRunner package:
>        "XULRunner 1.9.1 has been released and can be downloaded from
> Oh snap, looks like you're wrong Mr. Smarty Man.
>> Obviously your computer has been compromised by the alien overlords in
>> preparation for your removal. I would invest in a tent and bottled water so
>> you can hide in the forest when they come to collect you. I bid you farewell
>> and godspeed on your travels while evading your soon to be captors. Granted,
>> the packagers could just be referencing the Firefox/XUL Runner version.
> Oh well, that'll teach me to respond before reading the full email.
> I will keep my original response above for the lulz.

Major lulz. Also, the version mismatching is a known weirdoness.
Supposedly Spidermonkey is going to skip a version at some point so
that it maintains similar versioning to Firefox/XUL Walker.

>> Either way, that's gonna be an issue as that API was deprecated in 1.8.0.
>> And then changed again in 1.8.1 which doesn't exist yet. That patch isn't
>> terribly difficult. I'll should be able to get to it tonight.
> Not sure I follow.

Spidermonkey broked their API compatibility. There's a ticket or email
somewhere that discusses it. Basically, I'll probably just delete that
code as we trigger GC in lots of places and the replacement we have in
trunk doesn't actually do anything because we never trigger it. The
suggested  fix is to setup a thread that signals the main process to
run that call back which maybe triggers GC. It's all very exciting

>> Although, did you check the SVN log for the 0.9.x branch
> Yes, I made sure this was added to CHANGES:
>        Version 0.9.2
>        -------------
>         * Fix replication with 0.10+ servers initiated by an 0.9 server
> (COUCHDB-559).
> Oh snap, did I totally just school you again?

Yes. You have successfully flexed your SVN-fu muscles. Consider me
awed. Observing unabashedly with mouth agape. Tell me, did the walls
flex when you did that? Like at the end of that one movie?

>> I was wondering idly the other day if there's actually been any backports
>> to 0.9.x since the 0.9.1 release.
> What happened when the 0 9 1 release?

People rejoiced.

>> Granted it wasn't intriguing enough of a thought since I didn't bother to
>> flip to the terminal and run the necessary commands to find out for myself.
> What would happen if you didn't bother to flip to the terminal and run the
> necessary commands to find out for yourself?

I would've kept on trusting you to have made sure that there had been
commits. As you pointed out above you had done. My trust in you has
been vindicated. This time...

>> Mostly because that would've reminded me that I still have to use SVN
>> occasionally.
> Is it because that would've reminded you that you still have to use svn
> occasionally that you came to me?

Well, technically to the list, though admittedly I did address you
specifically in my reply as I was replying to you, but in a method
that would allow for others to provide an opinion. This was
demonstrated by Adam's electronic correspondence on the single commit
to the 0.9.x branch since the release of 0.9.1.

>> And generally I have to take a shower each time I have to confront that
>> fact.
> Can you elaborate on that?

To what end?

>> Which, as you might imagine, can be a bit complicated when answering such
>> emails at work.
> What happened when answering such emails at work?

Well, so far the world hasn't ended. Other than that, not a whole lot.

>> Its a thing I've been working through with my psychiatrist.
> Why do you say that?

I wanted to assure people that I was seeking professional help for my
SVN issues and that I wasn't going to end up writing a new operating
system kernel, building an international community of members and then
get stuck with writing a new distributed version control system due to
my dissatisfaction with the existing tools for such things. Ie,

>> Progress has been mostly slow but I really feel like I might get past it
>> at some point in the future now.
> Does it bother you that you really feel like you might get past it at some
> point in the future now?

It does. Without something at which to direct my negative feelings,
its a tad worrisome what I might use to fill that void.

>> Granted that doesn't mean I'm quite through it.
> When did you first know that does not mean you are quite through it?

The showering is the major issue at the moment.

>> The emotional scarring runs deep.
> Earlier you said that would've reminded you that you still have to use svn
> occasionally?

Its hard to discuss it for any length of time as I tend to confuse myself.

>> Can I be a mongoose dog?
> That is interesting, please continue.
Also also:

Paul Davis

View raw message