Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 62813 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2010 19:24:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 25 Jun 2010 19:24:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 32639 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jun 2010 19:24:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 32597 invoked by uid 500); 25 Jun 2010 19:24:52 -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 32576 invoked by uid 99); 25 Jun 2010 19:24:52 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 19:24:52 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=10.0 tests=AWL,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of randall.leeds@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.52 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.52] (HELO mail-qw0-f52.google.com) (209.85.216.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 19:24:47 +0000 Received: by qwf7 with SMTP id 7so742602qwf.11 for ; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:24:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=E+ZiRYanv4zKEbei47GXlaN1r/vBU4PBwGrvp1aXCII=; b=hPrmda2FaK7FL8KNcBulxxJO7axm9kSsxq1eUQXki2RerlbVeE2Y4naG2mQ62+W/IV R9bTOhzN3Yrr0q4bS+SQqOdO2zgrdyuYuSR3DlyVmM8UsXUAzekWMBpsb73mY7H+IWAt UBOIPRsI6SjtuBYM8n4QTZX9r42nx22lR9YVw= 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; b=syqMBHU02n+Q5JKYaZMFEeZBom3VmFCTbJ0q7mg57WXXrj+wnKcQeGPGAdU4hzDO+z 7pcjjPlDh3aDFC2kiua8db2Uw/or5TFqYGA+TU/9kLGAk3ifOh1nIalFwSB5WBN/ppDG CjNnAB/JC2rSlmjzyW1BxXwbkW9vaH3nb+67Q= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.30.135 with SMTP id u7mr960544qac.197.1277493866022; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:24:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.235.9 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:24:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <00A52656-15F1-4837-8406-C860B01C08BD@tumbolia.org> References: <06785380-0D82-431A-9DF0-FFBCF019C4F5@apache.org> <7A2714AB-13AF-4E65-A51F-CA58467B97E6@tumbolia.org> <9CF6D94D-D1CF-48A8-AFD8-903CC8D13735@apache.org> <02AD8968-F757-4FBA-8E77-900673E6C0DD@tumbolia.org> <523C3F77-8922-4F16-B467-9C659C00CE46@apache.org> <3AAF584E-59F0-4F12-965E-12686F51ECCE@tumbolia.org> <00A52656-15F1-4837-8406-C860B01C08BD@tumbolia.org> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:24:25 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 1.0 Vote From: Randall Leeds To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 13:59, Noah Slater wrote: > > On 25 Jun 2010, at 19:48, Randall Leeds wrote: > >> I've been under the impression that 0.11.x was somewhat of a 1.0RC and >> that's why there's been any discussion at all about branching 1.0 from >> it. If this is the case nothing should need to be backported after the >> 1.0 branch because there are no more 0.11.x releases, they are simply >> 1.0.x. > > This is horribly broken. Oh, make no mistake: I don't think anyone ever intended to change the release procedure in general. I thought I remember this was discussed as the case for 0.11 in particular, that it would be the testing and stabilization ground for 1.0. It may not be the case anymore.