couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <robert.new...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 release, Round 1
Date Fri, 26 Nov 2010 12:53:26 GMT
for mochiweb at least one important tweak was in mochijson2.erl
(COUCHDB-796). Using a mochiweb without this fix undoes a resolved
ticket. Additionally I had to do some extra work to get the HTTPS
support working (though it's more than possible that this was also
fixed upstream since I upgraded; I haven't checked).

Obivously I agree we should be using official releases of mochiweb and
ibrowse but that's not the case today, discarding the patches can
potentially break CouchDB. I don't like it, but the fact that part of
our source tree is imported from somewhere else is the current state
of play. Happily, I think the delta is getting smaller all the time as
the fixes and enhancements are applied upstream.

I suggest this discussion should move out of this thread which should
focus on voting on the release artifacts that Paul kindly assembled.

B.

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@ochtman.nl> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:55, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>> This breaks the basic requirement of not requiring networks access for
>> an installation which I remember Noah is advocating.
>
> Well, with doing it in the build system I really meant something that
> pulls them in for the tarball (or a tarball -- have one with, and one
> without the deps).
>
>> I think we can agree on that packaging and distribution is a tricky
>> business and that there are not general right or wrong ways of doing
>> it, just different priorities for certain trade-offs.
>
> Certainly agreed, though I think that, if you're putting deps in your
> version control tree, a certain effort is required to:
>
> (a) track how our version and upstream's compare, e.g. at the least
> make clear which version or revision our version is based on (oauth
> has none of this, apparently), and
>
> (b) spend quite some time making sure patches we need (or some
> variant of them) go upstream (for example, I'm not seeing any upstream
> issue about getting SSL into mochiweb -- maybe there has been other
> contact).
>
> Cheers,
>
> dirkjan
>

Mime
View raw message