couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Zachary Zolton <zachary.zol...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 0.11.0 release, second round
Date Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:25:52 GMT
Mac OS X 10.5.8
Erlang R13B02
Firefox 3.6.2
Safari 4.0.4

make check: OK

Passed unit tests for my internal Couch 0.10 application.

Firefox browser test failure:
content_negotiation
Assertion failed: expected 'text/plain;charset=utf-8', got 'application/json'

Safari browser test error:
list_views
Exception raised:
{"line":426,"sourceId":643790480,"sourceURL":"http://localhost:5984/_utils/script/couch.js?0.11.0","code":101,"message":"NETWORK_ERR:
XMLHttpRequest Exception 101","name":"NETWORK_ERR"}


On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 24 Mar 2010, at 09:47, Christopher Brown wrote:
>
>> Sorry for the hassle.  Just wanted to make sure I understood and that
>> I'm also following the same process.
>
> Again, the ASF is all about transparency, if there's anything unclear
> to anyone here, you shouldn't hesitate to ask for clarification :)
>
> Cheers
> Jan
> --
>
>> Thanks again!
>> Chris
>>
>> Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>> On 24 Mar 2010, at 09:28, Christopher Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can I ask a process point here?
>>>
>>> Of course, any time.
>>>
>>>> I'm seeing people saying "I may have missed a commit" and being asked to
>>>> do a clean install to run these tests, which makes me wonder if we are
>>>> all testing the same thing.  When Noah sends out mail saying "these are
>>>> the artifacts to vote on", is everyone ensuring that's exactly what they
>>>> are testing?  It doesn't appear to be the case.
>>>
>>> I'm reading this as: Benoit thinks there's a specific cause for his test errors,
>>> but he can't remember seeing a commit to code around that cause in the
>>> past. Hence "missing a commit" as it not knowing it about.
>>>
>>> Everybody in this thread must vote on the artefacts that Noah prepared
>>> that is the same code for everybody (it comes with a gpg signature,
>>> md5 and sha hash and voters should verify they all match).
>>>
>>> Benoit, if my reading of this is incorrect, please let me know :)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Before you write me off, hear me out.  I'm an *avid* consumer of couchdb
>>>> in my business today and vote at each release.  I want to ensure
>>>> quality, and understand the process.
>>>
>>> When Noah sends out a mail with [VOTE] in the subject he links to a location
>>> for a CouchDB tarball that is nominated to be the next CouchDB release.
>>>
>>> Everybody on dev@ is encouraged to vote on the nominated release.
>>>
>>> If you have any further questions, let me know :)
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Jan
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks for your patience,
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>>>> On 24 Mar 2010, at 02:44, Noah Slater wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24 Mar 2010, at 09:40, Brian Candler wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, nobody else seems to have had this problem, it's quite
possibly
>>>>>>> something to do with my setup, and browser-based tests are fragile
anyway.
>>>>>>> Hence I'm not going to vote against the release.  It's a 0 from
me.
>>>>>> Not true, you are the second to report it in this vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any of the developers (Jan?) want to comment on how serious this
bug is?
>>>>> Brian, Benoit, can you both double check and do a clean-slate installation
into a new --prefix if you haven't done so?
>>>>>
>>>>>> ** {{badmatch,{error,eacces}},
>>>>>
>>>>> From Brian's stacktrace, I'm seeing the eaccess error which suggests
that CouchDB doesn't have write permissions to local.ini (or local_dev.ini, if you run in
make dev mode).
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>>> [Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:00:50 GMT] [info] [<0.113.0>] OS Process
#Port<0.1864> Log :: function raised exception (new ReferenceError("map_funs is not
defined", "")) with doc._id 8450bfd7a0371f80a9baf032553367f4
>>>>>> …
>>>>>> [Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:00:50 GMT] [info] [<0.113.0>] OS Process
#Port<0.1864> Log :: function raised exception (new ReferenceError("map_results is not
defined", "")) with doc._id 8450bfd7a0371f80a9baf032553367f4
>>>>> These come from the view server and look like there's a weird condition.
Chris, maybe you can comment on this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Jan
>>>>> --
>>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message