couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Cottlehuber <d...@muse.net.nz>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 3
Date Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:40:13 GMT
On 27 January 2011 03:23, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 26 Jan 2011, at 13:03, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>
>>> In this case I don't care much if we record any of this (no objections either).
What I am after is that the fact that for reliable storage on Windows Erlang R14B1 is required
for 1.0.2 should be noted in a place where people downloading or reading up on 1.0.2 are looking
(i.e. the release announcement mail, which gets syndicated to many news sites as well as the
download page, where, duh, the download happens).

The wiki "Installing on Windows" notes this & I've added a link to the
unofficial builds I did this week if anybody wishes to test it out
https://github.com/downloads/dch/couchdb/setup-couchdb-1.0.2_otp_R14B01_spidermonkey_1.8.5.exe

>> Sure. But I'm just trying to clarify how we handle this, so that we can apply it
to future releases as well. If there's been a minimum required version in the past, we usually
put it in the README.
>>
>> We have never, to date, included any minimum version information in either the release
announcement or on the downloads page. If the community feels that this is important enough
in this case to warrant breaking with that convention, then so be it.
>>
>> But I'm trying to get a handle on when this is likely to happen again, so that we
can ratify it in our release procedure.
>
> Of note is that Windows users don't actually care about this for the
> most part. Its important to remember that the large majority of
> Windows users will only be downloading the prebuilt binaries.
> Therefore, seeing as very few people would actually be building
> CouchDB on Windows, I would just update the README on whatever
> branches that it requires R14B01.

Agreed - maybe in INSTALL.Windows then.

> And since we're not (to my knowledge) announcing Windows support on
> this release, there's nothing left to really concern ourselves with.

Mime
View raw message