Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 2125 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2010 15:07:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 26 Nov 2010 15:07:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 94176 invoked by uid 500); 26 Nov 2010 15:07:37 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 94068 invoked by uid 500); 26 Nov 2010 15:07:36 -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 94060 invoked by uid 99); 26 Nov 2010 15:07:35 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:07:35 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of djc.ochtman@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.52 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.212.52] (HELO mail-vw0-f52.google.com) (209.85.212.52) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:07:28 +0000 Received: by vws13 with SMTP id 13so622490vws.11 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 07:07:07 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=gyncTi1cvWHVGzzHMK9E0eBC5OhHXmJZvszfGCW+Ysc=; b=g2Nob0ZiLdr13LreUjl6Xw3le/UtB/B3RaRPv2lL94Znzi2Rtg7x0EMRYCVhaYQN9P pEsBXhRg6eG/arcwBd2GG5v5D4loa/11knnmNNSrZ1foT3mWbKyiXMRDwY0D2PD3LJHz d6hjPNrKdgZyl6ZojE+o4wRX8q9oOYK7N8buI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=SDZNRclBWKxFED5/M1CYmOewftmjkMmFCqGpr7AwAWhbQCmJDWRtAqbltpls1Pdy4Q vvmq5vRRYQjwjfir7XAUcSKe78u68YzQmRB2ZKekei+AT3yd6zjQsz3BVNSbYny/uutL 5wj5LynHQ6/hLpqvwudSvzUUXKaF6eY3+UcZM= Received: by 10.229.98.198 with SMTP id r6mr1904898qcn.124.1290784027101; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 07:07:07 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: djc.ochtman@gmail.com Received: by 10.229.35.16 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Nov 2010 07:06:46 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <04335370-BB92-453D-AD53-FA16306FC703@googlemail.com> <2A5B2BD2-9865-49B1-9EA5-E6A8DC2BA6B1@apache.org> From: Dirkjan Ochtman Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:06:46 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: eOfWokIBLW4PYl1_iUG18HoTr38 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 release, Round 1 To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 15:57, Jan Lehnardt wrote: > I wonder what the best solution here is. The problem with updating > to the latest Mochiweb right before a release is that subtle issues > don't have time surfacing in trunk. To ensure stable releases we > should be conservative with updates (modulo critical bug fixes of > course) or upstream libraries. How can we best ensure to keep them > up to date enough while not compromising a release's stability? The best solution IMO is if you can rely on upstream releases but specify which versions have been tested with. I.e. I'm happy to keep an older version of mochiweb around if you're not going to want to upgrade to the shiny new version right before a CouchDB release. Cheers, Dirkjan