Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of nslater@me.com designates
 17.148.16.103 as permitted sender)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: (lack of) couchdb windows binaries
From: Noah Slater <nslater@me.com>
In-reply-to: <4BB14CD2.9040700@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 07:00:20 +0100
Message-id: <ECFB8EBC-0368-4CF4-8170-C377D599BAFC@me.com>
References: <4BB134A9.40709@skippinet.com.au>
 <3E309DFB-8E57-4001-9B13-F733BE9346F0@me.com> <4BB14CD2.9040700@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org


On 30 Mar 2010, at 01:58, Mark Hammond wrote:

> I understand that - however, the Windows issues are well known, have existed forever and has never before been raised as a blocker for a windows binary.  If I knew it would be considered as such I would not have invested any further efforts in Windows binaries until the windows issues were resolved.

If you're happy preparing the binary, I am happy to call a vote on it.

> Something seems quite back-to-front here procedurally - many days of delays could have been avoided if Windows was not to be supported in this release, however a single day of delay then caused Windows to miss the boat.

We were all working under the assumption that we were going to do a Windows binary with the release, which is the reason time was sunk into it. When I was ready to actually do the release, you were about to go on a 10 day holiday. I was already feeling the pressure to get this out as soon as possible, and it was decided at the time that we should cut the release and proceed without the binary. Like Jan says, we can do a binary release separately, like now.

> I'm not quite with you - the release docs indicates it is now a first-class platform, but not first-class enough to warrant a build?

You were on holiday, which is the only reason we don't have a binary artefact to vote on.

If you wish to prepare one from the 0.11.0 release, then you can.

> As above, I have no interest in, or knowledge of the issues here, so I will leave the honours to someone who does (or at least someone who has enough grasp of this to consider it a problem.)

Actually, I think you're the only person with enough knowledge to handle this. You're not expected to know anything about the law. The purpose of the list is for people with the technical knowledge to ask the people with the legal knowledge what the best way forward is. If you start a thread on legal telling them how the Windows binary is constructed, and asking them if that is okay, that should be all that you have to do.