couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Apache CouchDB 1.0.2 Release, Round 3
Date Wed, 26 Jan 2011 14:35:17 GMT
I think that rule only applies to live animals.

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Paul Davis <> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Robert Newson <> wrote:
>> If my MSDN thing ever goes through from the ASF, I'm prepared to spend
>> some spare time on getting couch working on Windows. It sounds like
>> the OTP issues are resolved, which was the worst part.
>> Do we have enough votes to ship this puppy or what?
> We have enough votes but its illegal to ship animals through the USPS
> without filling out a lot of forms. I'd rather avoid it if at all
> possible.
>> B.
>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Noah Slater <> 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).
>>> 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.

View raw message